Sitting of 24 October 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair, this being the first day of the Autumn Sittings.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Valuations of Land).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases the valuations of land made by valuers under The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, had resulted in minus quantities, and what was the largest minus quantity yet arrived at?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In certain cases (chiefly in South Lancashire and
  2
  Scotland) land has been conveyed subject to a fee farm rent or fee duty, the capitalised value of which exceeds the value of the land as on the 30th April, 1909. Since, for the purpose of arriving at assessable site value this charge has to be deducted, the assessable site value in such cases works out at a minus value. The total number of assessments up to the 30th September last in which this result occurred was 36,610; the largest minus quantity arrived at was £7,320.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether the result to the Exchequer of this taxation so far has not been a minus quantity?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, certainly not. If the hon. Member will look at the return he will see that it is coming in. I have stated from the first, from the time the Budget was introduced, that it would take five years to value the land, and you cannot collect the whole of it until the assessment is complete.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the valuation will be completed in five years?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I am informed that the valuation is making excellent progress.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Have the returns for the first year come up to the right hon. Gentleman's expectations?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first year of the valuation is not yet completed.

  Board of Agriculture (New Buildings).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the new buildings of the Board of Agriculture will be ready for occupation?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The First Commissioner anticipates that the new buildings of the Board of Agriculture will be ready for occupation early in 1914.

  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to introduce his long-promised Milk and Dairies Bill.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am afraid the Government programme for the Autumn Session will not admit of the passing of a Milk and Dairies Bill this year.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to introduce this measure in the early part of next Session?
  Mr. BURNS: Sufficient unto the day is the goodness thereof.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will apply to Scotland?
  Mr. BURNS: No, Sir.

  Railway Amalgamations and Working Agreements.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he realises that the encouragement recently given by the Government to amalgamations of and working arrangements between British railway companies and the consequent withdrawal of competition has caused apprehension among farmers and small holders as to the possibility of an increase in the rates charged for consignment of agricultural produce proving destructive to their industry; and whether, prior to the introduction by the Government of legislation to repeal Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, and thereby further to increase the burden thrown upon agricultural industry, he will take steps to ascertain the effect of such legislation upon agricultural production and employment in rural districts?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): There is no intention to propose legislation to repeal Section 1 of the Act of 1894. I hope next Session to introduce a Bill to deal with certain matters referred to in the report of the recent Committee on Railway Amalgamations and Agreements, and incidentally to carry out the assurance given by the Government at the time of the railway dispute settlement. I shall, of course, be glad to consider any representations bearing on this matter from any source, but I wish to take this opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which apparently exists as to the nature of the assurance I have referred to. There is no proposal to permit a railway company to increase its maximum charges, or to dispense with the obligation to justify an increase within the maximum if challenged. All that is proposed is to make it clear that in such an event an increase in the cost of labour owing to improved conditions for the staff would, if established, be a valid justification for a reasonable increase of charges.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at the time that statement was made both sides agreed to be bound by the result of the Conference?
  Mr. BUXTON: That does not arise.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has one effect of the amalgamations of and working arrangements referred to in the question been a considerable reduction in the number of the railway servants without any corresponding increase in the wages of those who are left?
  Mr. BUXTON: That does not arise out of the question. If my hon. Friend will give me notice I shall be very glad to answer him.

  Railway Conciliation Boards.
  Mr. COOPERasked when His Majesty's Government were first informed of the dissatisfaction of the trades unions with the Conciliation Board Act of 1907?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is not possible to fix the first date at which any criticisms of the Conciliation Scheme of 1907 came to the notice of the Board of Trade, but various suggestions for future amendment in points of detail were put before them by deputations from certain railwaymen's unions towards the end of last year.
  Mr. COOPER: Is the House to understand that the Government were quite aware, previous to the railway strike

  5
  of the dissatisfaction of the workers on the railways with the Conciliation Board Act of 1907?
  Mr. BUXTON: Various questions with reference to it were brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, to which they gave their best attention.

  Working Classes (Cost of Living).
  Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty' Government have any propoal to lay before the House for the purpose of securing to the working classes the means of meeting the increasing cost of living by a corresponding increase in wages?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The important business which remains to be transacted in order to complete the work of the Session is, in our opinion, sufficient to occupy the whole time of the House during the Autumn Sittings. I cannot anticipate the programme of next year.
  Mr. COOPER: Have the Government considered the advantage of appointing an impartial investigation into this serious problem with a view of devising practical means for relieving the growing difficulties of the working classes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not in any way arise out of the question. The hon. Member must give notice.

ITALY AND TURKEY.
Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask why His Majesty's Government has not offered its good offices to Italy and Turkey, with a view to the termination of hostilities?
The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government do not consider that any public announcement on this subject will further the object indicated by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. D. MASON: Is the Prime Minister aware that under The Hague Convention, His Majesty's Government, who were a party to it, have bound themselves collectively with the other Powers, on their own initiative, to offer their good offices; and, further, whether it was suggested by Italy at that Convention that such an offer would not be considered an unfriendly act? I would like to ask whether His Majesty's Government are aware of those facts?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, we are very familiar with those facts.

CORONATION OF HIS MAJESTY.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received, through His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the following letter:—
Brazilian Legation,
London,
11th October, 1911.
Sir,
I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of Your Excellency that the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies passed on 22nd June last a Motion congratulating the English People and the British Parliament on the Coronation of His Majesty King George V., expressing at the same time its good wishes for the happiness of His Majesty's Reign.
Baron do Rio Branco, Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, desires me to place this congratulatory Motion before your Excellency with the request that it may be presented to the British Parliament.
I avail myself of this opportunity, etc.
(Signed) REGIS DE OLIVEIRA.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., etc., etc., etc.
Mr. SPEAKER: I assume it is the pleasure of the House that I send a suitable reply to this communication. [General assent signified.]

NEW WRITS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, That he had issued Warrants for New Writs during the Adjournment:—
For Kilmarnock District of Burghs in the room of Adam Rolland Rainy, esquire, deceased.
For County of Tyrone (North Tyrone Division) in the room of the Right hon. Redmond Barry (Lord Chancellor of Ireland).
For West Riding of Yorkshire (Keigh-ley Division) in the room of Sir John Brigg, knight, deceased.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
The Right Honourable Thomas Wallace Russell, for County of Tyrone (North Tyrone Division).
William Glynne Charles Gladstone, Esquire, for Kilmarnock District of Burghs.

DIVORCE BILLS.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited in the case of Watson's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—[The Attorney-General.]

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH HACKNEY.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask permission to make a very brief statement with reference to a matter which arose shortly before the adjournment of the House for the Autumn Vacation, and which, I am advised by some of my friends, in the absence of such statement might conceivably bear on the honour of Parliament. I happened to be defendant in an action-at-law in which the representatives of the deceased gentleman, with whom some years ago I had various stock and share transactions, alleged that those transactions had been induced by what the law calls false and fraudulent representation. I have no idea, of course, to comment for one second on the merits of the case, but I may be permitted to say this, that it was common ground that the deceased gentleman in question had never himself made such a complaint. But his legal representatives took that view. They brought their action, and, unfortunately, I lost it. Thereupon I took immediate steps to go to the Court of Appeal, and I asked that the verdict of the jury might be set aside on various grounds. The Court of Appeal very generously acceded to my request to accelerate the hearing of the appeal, and at the end of the arguments the President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, expressed the view that the verdict could not stand, and that I was entitled to have the case retried on the ground of misdirection by the learned Judge, and for other reasons with which I need not trouble the House. The two other members of the Court, I am sorry to say, did not agree with the President. They thought the verdict should stand; and they also conceived it to be portion of
8
their duty to make certain strong comments on the character of the transaction which, summarised, were not complimentary to me.
Immediately after that decision I took steps to take the case to the final Court of Appeal, the House of Lords. It was obvious that such an appeal could not be heard for a very long period, during which I should have to remain under the stigma of that verdict, and accordingly I availed myself of the good offices of a friend to meet the legal representatives of the plaintiff's in the action, when various explanations were given, various documents were produced, and ultimately it was arranged that I should abandon my appeal to the House of Lords upon a document being signed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, which stated simply that
"The plaintiff having had her attention drawn to a certain document, the contents of which were unknown to her advisers when she commenced the action, and being satisfied that the shares in the John Bull Investment and Trust Agency, Limited, might have been exchanged for shares of value, agrees that her claim was not based upon any specific misrepresentation of fact. It is understood that the appeal to the House of Lords is withdrawn."
On that document as the judge of my own honour, a matter in which with the utmost respect I require no assistance from anybody, I considered that the admission—first of all that the action was brought in ignorance of the existence of vital documents; secondly, that many of the shares involved in the transactions, and which happened to be the bulk of them, were unquestionably for securities of value; and, finally, that I was not accused or convicted, if I may use the term, of any misrepresentation of fact, I considered that sufficient vindication of my personal character in the matter, and thereupon I entered upon certain arrangements with the plaintiff, with the details of which I shall not trouble the House. In the ordinary way I should have thought the matter ended, but it is suggested in various quarters that in some way or other this case may reflect on the honour of the House of Commons, of which I am happy to think, you, Sir, and the Prime Minister are the guardians. If that be so I am most anxious to recognise the position. The House of Commons is jealous of its honour. It has always been anxious to preserve the reputation and integrity and quality of its Members, but at the same time, jealous as it is of its honour, it is not fastidious, and, provided that a Member within its walls duly recognises the high traditions of the House and the classic spirit of Parliament, it is not over inquisitive

9
as to the details of what I would call adventitious matters. But if the House thinks that in this case there is ground for further inquiry or action, I am here to say that I submit myself unreservedly and in the fullest loyalty to its judgment. If it cares to attach sufficient importance to the matter to refer it to a Committee of the House, I will submit to that Committee all the documents and facts, and if the Committee is adverse to me I will then appeal to the final and supreme tribunal which our Constitution recognises in these matters, namely, my own Constituency. But I venture to hope that, having heard my statement, the House will, in its generosity and large-heartedness, accept it as disposing of the necessity for further action, and that it will permit me to continue the efforts which I can say I have honestly made for the past few years to counteract and undo, if, indeed, there be things to counteract and undo, in connection with my past, by a sincere and approved, if unconventional, endeavour to do a little good public work. If the House thinks fit, I ask it to permit me to resume my Parliamentary activities in the firm determination, from which I have never swerved since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, so to conduct myself, both within its walls and outside, as not to disentitle me to the proud designation, which I can say I value as my life, of being the hon. Member for South Hackney. I thank you for permitting me to make this statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move:
"That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and have precedence at every Sitting; that, at the conclusion of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday; and that no Motion, except by the Government, be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."
The Motion standing in my name is in strict accordance with precedent, and is one which, I think, has been
10
made for many years past at this or the corresponding stage of the Session. It asks the House to assent to two propositions. The first is to suspend during the remainder of the Session the rule which compulsorily brings our Sittings to a close at Eleven o'clock; and the other is to give precedence during the whole time of the House to Government business, or to other work approved by the Government. With regard to the first part of the Motion, I will only say that there is no intention on our part of asking the House to accede to anything that would involve the prolonged strain of late sittings on hon. Members. The Motion which I shall propose to-morrow with regard to the principal measure before us, namely, the Insurance Bill, is one which will, I hope, give a very ample and generous allocation of time for the consideration of that measure, and provide that its various stages shall not be subject to the operation of this relaxation of the ordinary rule. As regards the rest of the procedure of the House, it is only for the purpose of meeting the general convenience and not with the object of imposing any tax on the strength of Members, that we are taking the precautions which have always been taken by Government in days gone by.
The more important part of my Motion is that which asks for precedence for Government business and the exclusion from the consideration of the House of business which has not been initiated or approved by the Government. With regard to that, again, we are acting in strict accordance with precedent. I may further point out that, although we were obliged in the early part of this Session to make considerable encroachments upon the time usually appropriated by private Members, the number of private Members' Bills placed on the Statute Book this year has already equalled, or more than equalled, the number passed in 1909 and 1910 respectively. Eight public general Acts were credited to private Members in 1909, and seven last year, whereas eight have already reached the Statute Book this year. I would add that if there is any private Members' Bill which has made substantial progress now and which meets with a general measure of acceptance from all quarters, the Government will certainly be disposed to give it the same facilities as have been given to similar Bills in like condition in former Sessions.
Mr. BALFOUR: Name?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know of any Bill which at present satisfies that condition.
Mr. REMNANT: Does that apply to the Scottish Police Bill, which is generally approved on all sides of the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: If it satisfies the condition, certainly.
Mr. JOWETT: The Feeding of Children Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: Again I say, if it satisfies the condition, certainly. As regards the Government Bills themselves, the situation is this. The following Government Bills have passed through Committee. I will give the amount of time which has been expended upon them in Committee:—

Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Bill, passed through Committee in one day;

Coal Mines Bill, upon which no less than twenty-four days have been expended in Committee upstairs;

Naval Prize Bill, passed through Committee in two days;

Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Bill, passed through Committee in one day;

Shops Bill, which consumed some sixteen days in Committee; and
Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, which occupied eight days in Committee.

These, the House will recognise, are exclusive of the Insurance Bill, which we propose to deal with by itself. Finally, there is the
Finance Bill still awaiting its Committee stage. As far as I know, that Bill does not contain any, at any rate acutely, controversial matter. ["Oh!"] I said "does not contain," though such matter might no doubt be imported into it.
These are the measures we hope to complete. There are certain small departmental Bills about which I will not make any statement to-day. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will consult the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) and others to see whether or not it will be possible to make progress with those measures. Substantially that is the legislative programme upon which the Government invites the House to embark, and to which the operation of the Motion I am now proposing is in effect confined.
Mr. BALFOUR: Aliens (Prevention of Crime) Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is not through Committee. The Bills which I have named have all passed through Committee, and although no doubt presenting a great deal of matter, they are all measures as to the policy of which there is general agreement. Upon two of them, at any rate—the Coal Mines Bill and the Shops Bill—a very large amount of time and labour has already been expended, and it would be an almost scandalous waste of that time and labour if, supposing reasonable time can be allotted to them, we did not endeavour to secure their passage through the further necessary stages in this House. The programme which I have thus outlined, apart from the Insurance Bill itself, is one that I think the House will agree is of comparatively modest dimensions. The demand we make on the House is one which does not in any degree fall beyond the precedents adopted by ourselves and our predecessors in recent years.
Mr. BALFOUR: How many days do you propose to give to the Insurance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is a perfectly reasonable request to make. It is proposed, subject to discussion to-morrow, to allot to the Insurance Bill eighteen Parliamentary days.
Mr. BALFOUR: For all its stages?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is not convenient to anticipate to-day the discussion which will take place to-morrow on the proposal for dealing with that particular Bill, but broadly it will be fourteen additional days for Committee, and four days for Report and Third Reading. Altogether it comes to eighteen—or possibly nineteen—Parliamentary days. The residue of the Session, it seems to us, might not be unreasonably appropriated to the consideration of the Report and Third Reading stages of the six Bills I enumerated a few minutes ago. None of these measures, I think, are in themselves of a party or a controversial character. All of them have, I think, received in principle the assent of the House, in some cases without a division on the Second Reading. Many of them have already been exhaustively discussed in Committee, and we think a profitable employment of that part of the sittings which remain after full and ample consideration of the

13
Insurance Bill should be devoted to the elaboration and perfection of these remaining measures.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the time proposed to be allotted to the Finance Bill? That is not one of the six measures; it is a seventh?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter which is quite open to argument or suggestion, but we think that two days for the Committee stage should be sufficient.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that it is our privilege to move new Clauses, and we have been denied that privilege for the last few years.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of the Bill as it stands. If that goes on we might take the whole of the Autumn Session discussing the measure.
Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to drop the House Letting (Scotland) Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: That has not passed the Committee I am sorry to say.
Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Does that mean that it is not to be taken in the Autumn Session? It was fixed for Committee this day week.
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any pledge with regard to it, but if we find that our more sanguine expectations are realised—and I do not see any obvious signs of encouragement—I shall be glad—as a Scotch Member, and one ardently in support of the principles of the Bill—to do everything in my power to facilitate its progress. But I cannot hold out any present expectation of further progress being made. I will answer any other questions.
Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Scottish Land Bill will be dealt with?
The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend cannot have observed that I mentioned that Bill.
Mr. LEIF JONES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill. [Laughter.] It is a Departmental Bill, and has been waiting for thirty years at the Local Government Board. The
14
water is required for other purposes than those suggested by the laughter of hon. Members.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am strongly in favour of taking any practical measures for the acquisition of water, particularly in the circumstances of the present year; but I am afraid that we must pass that Bill over.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, who has just moved his Resolution, was perfectly correct when he said that it was usual for the House, when they had an Autumn Session, to give the Government command of any time, or of such time, as might remain till the end of the year for the Parliamentary work. I do not rise to complain of the request of the right hon. Gentleman. I do rise to complain of the policy which has rendered that request necessary. It is quite clear that if we were to be called together to carry out legislative work at this time of the year, after labours of the magnitude which we have gone through in these recent months and years, that we cannot allow private Members to have their ordinary privileges, and that the Government must be given exceptional rights over our time. But those rights must not be abused. I think the Government—as I shall show before I sit down—are grossly abusing their right in having an Autumn Session at all. Putting that to one side, I think that the programme the Government are suggesting is altogether extravagant and impossible. What is it we are called upon to discuss? I do not mean to refer to the Insurance Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman quite accurately interpreted the purport of my interruption just now as meaning, not that I intended to discuss the allocation of the time to the Insurance Bill which comes on to-morrow, and upon which I probably shall have a great deal to say, but really to know how much time—what block of time—he proposes to give to that Bill in order to be able to estimate the allocation of the residue among the numerous projects of legislation which he has just laid before us. He told us that nineteen days in all are to be occupied by the Insurance Bill, and he calls that a generous and ample measure of time. I call it the most preposterously narrow and restricted measure of time that was ever submitted to the House of Commons. But, leaving that until we debate the Resolution to-morrow, I ask how much time are

15
the Government giving us before we separate for the Christmas holidays? The right hon. Gentleman made no estimate of that time, but I have done my best to make an estimate, and I gather that if we sit till the very latest day possible which would enable us to rise before Christmas there will be a little over twenty days of Parliamentary time for all the Bills the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. What are those Bills? They are the Finance Bill, the Mines Bill, the Shops Bill, the Small Land Holders (Scotland) Bill, the Naval Prize Bill—I do not know whether he mentioned the Peace Conference Bill—
The PRIME MINISTER: No.
Mr. BALFOUR: And the Borough Police (Scotland) Bill. The Finance Bill has got to be dealt with in Committee, all the others have to be dealt with on Report; and beside that no doubt time must be given for the discussion of the Lords Amendments. Can anybody seriously say we can squeeze into twenty Parliamentary days, which the Government are going to leave us after the Insurance Bill has been forced through, a proper discussion of these measures. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Finance Bill is in itself a non-controversial Bill, and that any controversy it may arouse is controversy superfluously added by the Opposition. He must know quite well there are great financial projects and schemes which must be discussed and must be criticised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would be the first to admit that certain taxes in his Budget of 1909 have now got to a stage when we can estimate the work of the Department upon them; whether they are succeeding; the convenience or inconvenience they are causing to the public; the amount of revenue they are bringing in; and every man will admit, whatever his views may be upon the 1909 Budget, now that we have got to the end of 1911, it is not too early to discuss, not the theoretical basis of those proposals, but their working in practice, and, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman thinks two days enough. Really, if he will allow me to say so, that is a most amazing suggestion, and one which I venture to suggest, unless he misuses his powers in a way they have never yet been misused in regard to the Finance Bill, it would be perfectly impossible to carry out the scheme which he has suggested. The fact that the discussions of the other Bills have
16
gone oh in Grand Committee has prevented me being acquainted personally with the course of argument adopted or the magnitude of the changes effected upstairs away from this House and very imperfectly reported in the Press. But I understand that one of the two Bills he mentioned—the Mines Bill—has taken twenty-four days in Committee and the other the Shops Billy sixteen days, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think—he did not say so, but I rather gathered that he seemed to suppose so—that the very magnitude of the discussions that took place in Grand Committee absolves this House from any further discussion. Surely the true inference is absolutely the other way. What has happened I am given to understand in the case of both these Bills is that they have been recast and rehashed by the Grand Committees from the first Clause to the last, that they have been profoundly modified, that the schemes prepared by the Ministers with the help of their advisers, and sent up for discussion are not the schemes of which this House approved on Second Reading, not the schemes of which the Ministers originally approved, but entirely new forms which these measures have taken under the pressure of discussion in Grand Committee. If that is so these measures come down to us as new measures, or relatively new measures. The decisions in the Committees upstairs when they reach this magnitude, when they amount to reconstruction of the whole Bill, must come under review in this House as a whole and I earnestly hope the right hon Gentleman will not ask the House to accept without further discussion schemes which have not been submitted to the House on the Second Reading, upon which Members of this House, other than Members of the Grand Committees, are most imperfectly informed, and upon which the Ministers in charge ought to make a general statement before they ask us to proceed with the further consideration of these measures. I do not dwell upon the Naval Prize Bill—it is certainly controversial—the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill is certainly complicated. How on earth are we to get all these measures into the residue of time the Government are going to leave after they force through the Insurance Bill.
And please remember that this House when it is called together for legislation cannot ignore its other duty, namely, the criticism of the Executive. Is no time to be left for that? When I say criticism I

17
do not necessarily mean, or, indeed, desire to suggest, criticism of a party nature. Great and important events have happened since the House separated. Are we to hear nothing of them from Ministers? Are they not to be debated. There were lamentable strikes.
An HON. MEMBER: Why lamentable?
Mr. BALFOUR: I think them lamentable. I am not arguing the point. The hon. Gentleman may rejoice in them, but I think them lamentable. These strikes took place in August; they never were discussed in this House; there was some Debate upon them which the Government very properly cut short, because they thought the time was not ripe for discussion, but they never were discussed. I was not in the House, but I think I am right in saying they never were discussed. I think I am right in saying there was an appeal made by the Government not to discuss these matters.
The PRIME MINISTER: It was not responded to.
Mr. BALFOUR: It was certainly responded to by hon. Gentlemen upon the Opposition side. There were, I understand, some Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who continued the Debate, but so far as the Opposition was concerned, the appeal was fully responded to. But putting the British strikes on one side, there was the Irish strike; that occurred since the House rose, and it seems to me altogether absurd to suppose that we either can or ought to allow the Autumn Session to come to a close without interchange of views on all these affairs, and learning what the House thinks of the course which the Executive upon their responsibility took. The Government must thoroughly understand that I do not approach their action in any critical spirit. I only say these are matters of administration which this House must discuss, and there must be found an opportunity in the course of this Session for that discussion. With regard to foreign affairs I do not know that I am prepared to press for a Debate, but I must say that I think some statement should be made by the Foreign Secretary upon the subject. Absolutely the only statement that I know has been made has not been made by the Foreign Secretary but by the Postmaster-General, and that statement has not been made in this House, but in the Chamber of Commerce in Paris. On the whole, I think
18
this is a better theatre of operations for a discussion of the foreign affairs of the British Empire than that which by accident was given to the Postmaster-General a few days ago—the day before yesterday.
Mr. W. THORNEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
Mr. BALFOUR: I made no criticism on the day I discussed the Minister and the place, and neither the Minister nor the place appear to me to be appropriate for an exposition of our foreign affairs. I hope the Prime Minister will take some occasion to speak to his distinguished colleague and find time for a statement which may possibly extend to a Debate. That must be found in the course of these few days before Christmas. Altogether, any hon. Gentleman who impartially considers the survey I have ventured to make of what the Government intend to do—and what the Government must do whether they intend it or not if they accept the whole scheme of operations suggested by the Prime Minister—will see that it is one which cannot possibly be carried into-effect.
Before sitting down, I hope the House will allow me for one instant to go a little further and raise a protest against the whole plan of requiring the House to meet at this date, after the labours we have already gone through, to deal with these questions. May I remind the House of the policy of the Government in regard to these matters. There was an Autumn Session in 1906, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911. In 1906 we sat in every month but two; in 1907 in every month but five; in 1908 in every month but two; in 1909 in every month but one; in 1910 in every month but four; and in 1911 in every month but two. I hear two industrious and honourable Gentlemen applauding.
Mr. SHERWELL: My expression was not one of approval, but of protest.
Mr. BALFOUR: I am very glad of that. I thought the hon. Gentleman was expressing approval of the policy of the Government. I venture to say that no one with long experience in this House can approve of it. It is not a question of our convenience, but of our efficiency, and a question of the Members you can get to serve in this House. I say you are ruining the House of Commons if you require them to sit for ten months out of every twelve. I do not know that it is worth debating at this time, but I could

19
quote authorities. I have heard Mr. Gladstone himself speak in the strongest language about the injury and the evil done to this Assembly by throwing on it burdens which no other Assembly in the world in point of duration is ever asked to bear. It cannot be done without great injury to the Assembly itself. But the injury does not stop with the Assembly, for it extends to the Departments, to Ministers and to legislation. How can the Departments do their work properly if they are never allowed any repose from the particular kind of labour thrown upon them by the Debates in this House? It is an inevitable incident of our form of Parliamentary Government that whenever the House is sitting the Departments are, from their point of view, plagued and tormented by questions, always made as difficult as they can be made by the questioner—that is in the nature of things—and in this way the whole steady course of public business and the time given to quiet thought on important public matters is made impossible. They cannot do it. They cannot work. You do not get the best out of the brains of the eminent men you have as your permanent Civil servants. If anything were required to throw additional burdens on the Departments, the Government, quite casually, throw upon them the additional task of tuition, by giving them a new Minister to educate every year or every six months. Whether it is that a Minister finds the office intolerable or the office finds the Minister intolerable, I am sure I do not know. Clearly the result must be that offices already burdened afresh every year by the natural automatic growth of public business, and also by the fact that this House is perpetually in Session, have to take the double burden, made a treble burden by the fact that they have to initiate into the mysteries of the Department a new Minister every six months.
Sir, I do really think we can see the effect of this system upon our legislation. We pressed through the Eight Hours Miners Bill in an Autumn Session. I am told it has already produced one strike, and that it is going to produce other strikes. The difficulties of that piece of social legislation have hardly begun. I have already referred to the treatment which the Shops Bill and the Miners Bill have received at the hands of the Grand Committee. I say nothing about the Insurance Bill, although the Chancellor of
20
the Exchequer will readily agree with me that that is not because there is not a great deal to be said. At all events, confining our attention to the other two Bills for the moment, is it not clear that if there had been more opportunities for considering those Bills before they were brought up to the House—I do not say this as an attack upon Ministers or the Departments—it probably would have been found possible to have passed them through Grand Committee without entirely reconstituting them. There you have objective proof of the extraordinary difficulty of carrying on social legislation—the most difficult of all legislation—under the amazing and unexampled pressure which the Government of the day put upon the House of Commons and the Departments, and not least upon themselves. What Minister coming down every day to answer questions, fighting for his life in this House, has the time absolutely necessary for dealing with those broader questions of policy which are more and more coming to the front as our views on social legislation grow and progress.
The truth is the Government are trying to do two things at the same time, which cannot be done. They will carry out their revolutionary Radical legislation and that they do in the earlier half of the year, and they squeeze their social legislation into a corner. It cannot be done. It is bad on general principles, and I think I should not have been doing my duty on this occasion if I had not taken the opportunity of protesting to the best of my ability, not in the interests of any particular party, or in the interests of any particular kind of legislation, but in the interests of the whole House and of the Departments. An Autumn Session, of course, is an occasional necessity. Nobody denies it, but under this Government there has only been one year in which there has not been an Autumn Session. That is a state of things which this House ought to look to. Our own liberty, our own powers of discussion, and the excellence and stability of the measures we pass absolutely depend upon our having adequate time to deal with the details of the legislation the Government choose to lay before us. Why is all this pressure and hurry? Why does the Prime Minister, whom I am confident is as fully aware as I am of the magnitude of the evils I have ventured to lay before the House, give in? Why, it is because each one of his colleagues wants to have a Christmas-box to present to the constituencies. Each

21
one wants to be able to go to the public platform and say, "Look what a fine piece of social legislation which I have been the author of!"
Mr. LANSBURY: Social humbug!
Mr. BALFOUR: It is a laudable ambition, but it is not an ambition which the Prime Minister ought to allow to be exercised at the cost of all the best traditions of this House, and of those public departments which are the servants of this House.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am perfectly certain that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will find an echo in the hearts of Members on all sides of the House. It is perfectly true this House is conducting its business at the present time under conditions that are almost impossible. I think we all agree with that, but, when we consider the question of Autumn Sessions, I think it must be part of the much larger consideration of the whole of the arrangements of this House, and a debate on that subject in connection with a Motion such as that just proposed by the Prime Minister would not be profitably pursued. The Prime Minister, as Leader of this House, on such occasions always produces this Resolution, and it is not the duty of those of us who desire to see something done, those of us who desire to present that very desirable and not at all reprehensible thing, a Christmas-box to our constituents—I wish there were more Ministers desired it—to raise those questions in connection with this Resolution. I should like to deal with two Bills in particular. The first is the Scottish House Letting Bill. Hon. Members who took an interest in this Bill before the Summer Recess will remember that certain pledges were definitely given with regard to it. One of those pledges was that the Bill should go upstairs next week, and expectations were held out that, if the Bill got through Committee upstairs, and came down here at a reasonable time, some sort of facilities would be given for its passage. I hope the Prime Minister will not close his heart to the appeals made on behalf of this Bill. The Bill has gone through this House before. It was sent to another place, and it was only mangled and executed there. So that, as a matter of fact, this House has discussed this Bill, and the proceedings that are now to take place upon it are not much more than formal proceedings. I will therefore put in an appeal to the Prime Minister that
22
this Bill should receive very favourable consideration during this Session. I hope we shall also be able to persuade the Prime Minister to give the Child Feeding Bill which received a First Reading with so much good-hearted unanimity in this House, consideration. I believe it will be supported by influential Members on all sides of the House. I hope we will be able to open up negotiations on that point, which will persuade the Prime Minister that it will be desirable to give that Bill some facilities.
I desire to join again with the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in appealing to the Government to give us an opportunity of criticising the Executive. It is certainly true, as he said, that certain events were taking place when we adjourned and matured after we adjourned, which it is the desire of Members of this House and which it is the duty of the House as a whole to discuss here. I refer to the railway difficulty, and I refer to the general labour unrest, but I refer to something more. There have been coroners' inquests held since we were here, and I think the evidence which was produced at those inquests contradicts to a very considerable extent statements made in this House when we did discuss that matter. I know the Opposition waived its right to enter into a general discussion of the question. We did not. We did not think it our duty to do so, but I am bound to admit that the information then at our disposal was imperfect, and now it can be supplemented by evidence given before coroners' inquests I think this House ought to insist upon those matters being brought up so as to correct the impression left by certain speeches made on the Government Bench. There is, therefore, not only the specific railway difficulties, but the steps taken by the Government to meet those difficulties which ought to be the subjects of discussion in this House during the Autumn Session. I will therefore put in a plea, and press the plea, that the Government before it sends us into the Division Lobby on this Resolution should tell us what it is going to do, not merely about legislation, but about the facilities to be given to Members on all sides of the House to discuss certain acts of the Executive.
I do not propose to say anything more at the present time. We all admit the Government must have the time of the House, but I think the Government ought to have the time of the House on a condition, and the condition ought to be that the Opposition,

23
the Regular Opposition, and the minorities who act more with the Government than with the Opposition, minorities, like ourselves, who believe on the whole the Iunsurance Bill will be passed—[Laughter.] We are not political fools. We do not put ourselves into the hands of the Opposition merely because the Opposition laugh at us. I say minorities that have been acting during the last Session or two on the Parliament Bill and on the Insurance Bill, more with the Government than with the Opposition, but who will act with the Opposition whenever we think it suits the principles and convenience of our party to do so—I think it is necessary that we should all, whilst candidly and honestly admitting the Government is entitled to ask for sufficient time to enable it to carry out its programme, see we to have an opportunity of advancing our own particular programmes and of criticising the Government when we desire to do so.
4.0 P.M.
Sir W. BYLES: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seemed to entirely agree to the acquisition of the time of private Members. But, as the House will remember, he is a partially interested witness, for although he may not be a Member of the Government, he is a possible Member of a future Government, and is therefore interested in breaking into the rights and privileges of private Members. I propose to make an appeal, from a private Member's point of view, against these constant inroads upon our privileges. Although I am not going to vote against this Motion, silent acquiescence in what is proposed does not satisfy me. The House of Commons is, I submit, one thing; the Government is another; and what I complain of is that by this policy the Government are absorbing not only the time but the energy, independence, and initiative of the House of Commons. We are brought here at an unwonted time of the year by a very peremptory Whip, and we are brought here only to register the decrees of the Government. The fact is that private Members' functions have become atrophied. In the view of the Government that may be a good thing, because they regard the private Member only as a nuisance. They merely want a man who will occasionally support them in Debate and who will always vote for them. When I came to this House twenty years ago the
24
Government had two days a week only—Mondays and Thursdays. Now all the time of the House is taken by the Government almost as a matter of course. May I mention another result of the present policy, and that is that the brightest debaters, the men who offer the most effective and damaging criticism, are drawn, into the Government. I do not wonder at it, because there is no career for them outside. They seem to be remarkably versatile men, as, judging from the bewildering list of changes announced to us this morning, they are quite capable apparently of fitting either round holes or square ones. May I point out that the effect of this is that our attack is weakened and their defence is strengthened.
But what must be the effect on new Members? We have seen new Members admitted to-day. I suppose, and I hope, they have come in with the idea that a detached examination of the Government proposals by an independent and not unfriendly mind is one of the most useful functions of Parliament. I would even say it is a primary elemental condition of House of Commons life. But it has fallen into desuetude. It is not encouraged; indeed, it is discouraged, and on a frown from a Minister or a friendly hint from a Whip that he should hold his tongue—to the least pressure indeed that can be applied, the new Member quickly yields. His ambitions are damped, the hours that he has spent in preparing his speech in addition to those devoted to the task of catching the Speaker's eye are wasted, and this proves so discouraging that he quickly abandons his efforts and puts into his pocket the notes of his undelivered speech. After a Session or two he retires into the position of what I may call a smoke-room critic. There his criticisms are loud enough, but those criticisms, in my judgment, would be far better made on the floor of the House. The rights of the House, indeed, are being gradually destroyed. Of course, we want passed the Government Bills, a list of which has been read out, and nothing else would induce me to acquiesce in this proposal. But the evil remains unabated, it is indeed growing. We are reduced to mere voting machines to the end of this Session, and the one hundred and one questions which interest the country cannot be raised. We have heard some of these questions named by the Leader of the Opposition. Many of us want to elicit information about foreign affairs which are strangely and mysteriously hidden from

25
the knowledge of the representatives of the people. We may want also to condemn the doings of the late occupant of the Home Office—who is apt to do daring and unconventional things. We may want to criticise the policy of the Local Government Board or of the Board of Education. But if this Motion is passed we shall have no opportunity of doing so, and, at the same time, we shall be establishing a precedent or rather strengthening a precedent which will be bettered by succeeding Governments. But if I do not oppose this Motion in the Division Lobby it may be said, and truly said, that this protest of mine is a blank cartridge. I would ask the House gravely to consider the dangerous inroads on the Parliamentary liberties of private Members which are made by these repeated Motions, and I would also ask the Government seriously to consider their effect with regard to the independence of the House of Commons. The fact is they are extinguishing the private Member as well as the independence of the House of Commons, while at the same time they aggrandise the Executive and the official hierarchy. Whether that be a good thing or a bad thing each Member must judge for himself. I think it is a bad thing.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move as an Amendment to omit the words: "be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and"
I think it is evident to everyone that if we are to have an Autumn Session in that Autumn Session only the business of the Government should be considered. Therefore the only question which appears to me to arise is as to the form in which the Motion is drawn. There is in this Motion a provision to which I object, and to which I propose to move this Amendment. It is the provision regarding the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. The Prime Minister has told us that to-morrow he will make an announcement with regard to the time which is to be allocated to the Insurance Bill. He also informed us—and I thank him for it—that there will be a special provision in the Motion which will prevent the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule so far as the Insurance Bill is concerned. We are told with respect to the eighteen or nineteen days which are to be given before Christmas to the Insurance Bill that those days are to be exempted from the operation of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. The
26
Prime Minister further told us, and again I am obliged to him for the information, that Members are not to be put to any strain by this suspension. It therefore comes to this—that for nineteen days we shall sit here to discuss the Insurance Bill, and the Debates will terminate at eleven o'clock so that we may go to bed fairly early. I would suggest, in the interests of the Government, that the same provision should also apply to other Bills, otherwise there may be small measures brought forward to which some Members attach importance, and they may be called on after eleven o'clock, when we shall be left without the safeguarding presence of the Prime Minister, and some minor official may, be in charge who will not have the courage to get up and move the Adjournment of the House against one of his own party. It is for these reasons that I move this Amendment. I would remind the House that it was this Government, and it was hon. Members below the Gangway who instituted the Eleven o'clock Rule in the Session of 1906, and from that date we have hardly had a single Session or day in which it has not been suspended. If it is a good thing, why should hon. Members below the Gangway continually seek to alter it? I am not quite certain whether the effect of my Amendment, if it is carried, will be not only to preserve the Eleven o'clock Rule, but also to preserve the opportunities of Members to move the Adjournment of the House on matters of public importance. I am not quite certain if that is so, but if it is, then it constitutes an additional argument in favour of accepting my Motion. Cases might easily arise of urgent public importance, and it might be absolutely necessary for some Member to move the Adjournment of the House in order that that question should be discussed. I think my Amendment would include that.
Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Amendment. There is one point to which my hon. Friend has not referred, and that is that we have all received in the course of the last month numerous requests from our Constituents to be in our places during this part of the Session to watch various Amendments in which they are interested, and asking us to give the closest attention to them and to be prepared to vote upon them. That will entail the closest attendance upon all Members of the House during the Autumn Session, and it will involve a far greater strain, upon us than the ordinary Session before the adjournment, when there were many

27
occasions, such as those of Votes of Supply, when the personal attendance of Members was not required. Now we shall have to be here from day to day and every day, and that is a far greater strain. The Prime Minister has not yet told us whether he intends any Committee to sit during the Autumn Session. If there is, as has been rumoured, to be one of the big Committees sitting and considering a portion of the Insurance Bill, this would put a greater strain upon Members, for they will have to sit from 11.30 in the morning and be here until 11.0 at night. That will tax the strength of any man, and it will not be fair to ask any body of men to do it. For that reason I second the Amendment.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet well knows that the Motion in the form in which it stands is the Motion in the form in which it has been invariably proposed and adopted by the House in years gone by. The proposal to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule with regard to Government business is not a new one. I think—although I speak with some diffidence—the hon. Baronet has not correctly apprehended the effect of the Motion as it stands. He seems to apprehend that the Motion affects the power of Members to move the Adjournment of the House on any matter of urgent public importance. The terms of the Motion do not in any way affect that power. Of course, there have been cases under Guillotine Resolutions when that power has been taken away, but that is no part of this Resolution, and that important right of private Members is in no way infringed upon. The hon. Baronet seems to think that if the Motion passes it would be possible for a private Member's Bill to be taken after eleven o'clock. That is quite impossible.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I never said that.
The PRIME MINISTER: Then what is the suggestion?
Sir F. BANBURY: My suggestion is that we should go to bed at eleven o'clock.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite with the hon. Baronet on that, but what is the danger against which he wishes us to guard?
Sir F. BANBURY: It is this. The right hon. Gentleman is only going to take a certain number of Government Bills, a list
28
of which he has given to the House, and he has already had two Members asking that two other Bills should be taken, and he has quite rightly refused. What I am afraid of is that if one Government Bill is finished at ten minutes past eleven, some other Government Bill might be pressed for, and taken if the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Baronet is modifying his statement. I understood him to say that he was afraid that a Bill which we call a "starred" Bill might be adopted by the Government. That is not the intention. I am speaking now on behalf of the Government and as Leader of the House, and I say that that is not the purpose to which this Motion is intended to be applied. We intend to guard a discussion which is approaching its conclusion, which may very often reach its conclusion in a quarter of an hour or half an hour—I am not binding myself, otherwise there may be charges of breaches of faith—but I will say within reasonable elasticity, a phrase capable of a great many interpretations. That is the kind of case we have in view. The only other case I can think of would be one where there was an agreement to take a Bill, although a Government Bill, a Bill of a departmental or a non-controversial character. With this explanation I think the hon. Baronet will see his apprehensions are ill-founded. Assuming that you are going to give the Government control over the time of the House, I say we are only asking for the reasonable elasticity we and all our predecessors have asked the House to let them enjoy.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister is well aware that we have had one or two cases of very serious misconception as to what the expressed intentions of the Government in relations to matters of this kind did really mean when they came to be put into practice. If I rightly understand the right hon. Gentleman he does preclude himself from doing certain things. He proposes to have the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule solely in order not to prevent the conclusion of a discussion which would, with reasonable elasticity, quickly come to an end. I take that to mean that a new discussion would not be commenced.
The PRIME MINISTER: Unless there was general agreement to take a new Bill.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I leave on one side the agreed cases, as to which I raise no question. If there is general agreement in all quarters of the House I have no objection to a Bill being proceeded with on these conditions.
The PRIME MINISTER: After eleven o'clock?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, after eleven o'clock. I want to get as exactly as I can what will be done. If I go beyond what the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken, I beg him to correct me now and not leave me to find out my error after the Motion has been carried. I am as anxious as he to avoid anything in the nature of charges of breach of faith in matters of this kind between the two sides of the House, and it is for that reason I venture to press him now, rather than to leave things vague now, and perhaps have a very disagreeable scene in the House later. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to preclude himself from beginning a new Bill after eleven o'clock without the general assent of the House. I understand that if we were discussing the Insurance Bill up to eleven o'clock, it would not be open to the Government to submit any new Bill after eleven o'clock, and it would not be compatible with the understanding that they should bring to a sudden close a Bill just before eleven o'clock in order to get another Bill under discussion at eleven o'clock and get it carried on after eleven, and that if we were discussing a Bill and they thought it right to ask the House to sit later in order to finish the discussion of a particular Clause, it would not be right or in accordance with the intentions declared by the Government to begin a new Clause when the Clause under discussion was finished. If in any degree I have misunderstood the Prime Minister, I beg that he will not allow me to rest under that misunderstanding, or the House to rest under it.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the tone the right hon. Gentleman has adopted is one very conducive to the friendly settlement of these matters. I offered what I considered to be a very
large concession in the statement I made. The right hon. Gentleman now cross-examines me in, if he will forgive the expression, a rather pettifogging way as to the precise meaning of what I stated.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of pettifogging cross-examination, I am bound to remind him that he gave what everybody on this side of the House considered a pledge, which was broken in his absence by one of his colleagues, and I want to prevent that recurring.
The PRIME MINISTER: That, again, is not conducive to a reasonable and temperate discussion. I am not contesting the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's words. I am dealing with the present situation, and I do not see why we should go back. I have made a perfectly explicit statement. My statement was this, that the intention of this provision is to enable discussion in progress on a Bill to continue after eleven o'clock with what I call reasonable elasticity, or a reasonable probability of its being brought to an end. I do not think it is fair to engraft upon that what the right hon. Gentleman sought to do, a pledge that if a particular clause was under discussion we should be precluded from entering upon another clause. There may be two or three clauses, unimportant in themselves, which there was a general desire to discuss, and which might very well be discussed after eleven o'clock. I am not speaking of a Bill on a new subject. I do not in any way preclude myself or my colleagues from moving the Closure if the circumstances are such that the Closure is reasonable and proper just before eleven in order to enter upon a new subject or a new Bill. It would be a monstrous thing to ask any Minister to enter into any such undertaking, and I shall certainly not give such an undertaking, but subject to that I do say that without consent we should not propose to enter upon a new Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 158.

Division No. 341.]

AVES.

[4.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Barnes, G. N.

Adamson, William

Armitage, Robert

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Addison, Dr. C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

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

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bentham, G. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Heyward, Evan

O'Grady, James

Black, Arthur W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Boland, John Plus

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Malley, William

Booth, Frederick Handel

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hinds, John

O'Shee, James John

Brace, William

Hodge, John

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Brunner, John F. L.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bryce, J. Annan

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Philips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Cameron, Robert

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, W.

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pointer, Joseph

Chancellor, Henry George

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Clough, William

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

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Clynes, John R.

Joyce, Michael

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Keating, M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Kelly, Edward

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Reddy, Michael

Cowan, W. H.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Crooks, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Randall, Athelstan

Crumley, Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Leach, Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dawes, James Arthur

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Delany, William

Lundon, Thomas

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Devlin, Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rowlands, James

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rowntree, Arnold

Donelan, Captain A.

Maclean, Donald

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Doris, William

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

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

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Scanlan, Thomas

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

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

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Sheehy, David

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Shortt, Edward

Falconer, James

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Simon, Sir John Allsbrook

Farrell, James Patrick

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Martin, Joseph

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Ffrench, Peter

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Field, William

Masterman, C. F. G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Meagher, Michael

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Summers, James Woolley

France, Gerald Ashburner

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Middlebrook, William

Tennant, Harold John

Gill, A. H.

Millar, James Duncan

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Glanville, Harold James

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Toulmin, Sir George

Goldstone, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, George Hay

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Morrell, Philip

Verney, Sir Harry

Greig, Colonel James William

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wadsworth, J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Muldoon, John

Walters, John Tudor

Griffith, Ellis James

Munro, Robert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wardle, George J.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Waring, Walter

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Needham, Christopher T.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hancock, J. G.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Norman, Sir Henry

Webb, H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nuttall, Harry

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Harwood, George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Dowd, John

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Ogden, Fred

Wiles, Thomas

32

33

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Goldman, C. S.

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Goldsmith, Frank

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Baird, J. L.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

Grant, James Augustus

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Guiney, Patrick

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Barnston, Harry

Haddock, George Bahr

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

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Quilter, W. E. C.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Bigland, Alfred

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rolleston, Sir J.

Boyton, James

Hills, John Waller

Ronaldshay Earl of

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Burn, Col. C. R.

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Butcher, John George

Horner, Andrew Long

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Campion, W. R.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Snowden, Philip

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cassel, Felix

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cator, John

Jowett, Frederick William

Stewart, Gershom

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Chambers, J.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Clyde, James Avon

Lansbury, George

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Larmor, Sir J.

Touche, George Alexander

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Courthope, George Loyd

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Welgall, Captain A. G.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wheler, Granville G. H.

Crean, Eugene

Macmaster, Donald

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

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

M'Mordie, Robert

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Magnus Sir Philip

Winterton, Earl

Doughty, Sir George

Malcolm, Ian

Wolmer, viscount

Duke, Henry Edward

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Yate, Col. C. E.

Fleming, Valentine

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

Younger, Sir George

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Forster, Henry William

Newman, John R. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

F. Banbury and Mr. A. Fell.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Nield, Herbert

Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move to omit the words "without question put," and to insert instead thereof the words "put the Question that the House do now adjourn."
The object of the Amendment is to give to private Members a greater opportunity than they would otherwise have of criticising the Executive of the day or asking them questions about which they may be interested. I think it has been agreed already on both sides of the House, including the Leader of the Labour party, that under the Motion as it stands, and under the allocation of time foreshadowed
34
by the Prime Minister, there are not going to be many opportunities of fulfilling that part of the functions of the House which consist of criticising the Executive. There are not many opportunities at any time of criticising the Executive of the House. To my mind the old Rule about being able to adjourn the House has been largely spoilt by the fact that the adjourned Debate takes place at nine o'clock, and also by the fact that it is so very stringent in its application that it very often cannot be applied, although the matter may be of importance. It is a relief to some of us, I am sure, to learn that in this Motion the

35
right of moving the Adjournment of the House still remains. That is better than has been the case sometimes with previous Motions of this character. Still, I do not think it is worth very much, because in the first place it has to be a matter of urgent and definite public importance, and, moreover, it has to be ruled that no other opportunity of discussing it could possibly arise, and, as a matter of fact, I think the number of occasions on which that rule has been utilised during the last year or two should be sufficient evidence, at all events, that it is not really of very much value to private Members of this House. But as the Rules of this House have been altered of late years by the Closure, and such like operations as the guillotine, Members find new ways of their own of providing opportunities of criticising the Government or of asking them questions in addition to the ordinary ones, and one of these opportunities, which Members have valued very much of late, has been afforded by the occasion when Mr. Speaker puts the Question, at the end of the sitting, that the House do now adjourn. Of course it is not a very satisfactory opportunity, because it does not enable you to divide upon your question, no matter how much interest you may have in it, but at all events it gives the private Member an opportunity of forcing an answer from a Cabinet Minister on any particular matter that he may have at heart, and I therefore think it is of very great value in that respect. Under all these Motions which, as the Prime Minister tells us, have been frequently moved before, that right has been taken away from the private Member, and he is not able to ask such questions as he may desire to put to a Minister at that time. By this simple Amendment—and I do not think it will affect the Government's programme of time, and therefore they need not oppose it on that account—private Members will be given this opportunity, which I think they will very much value, and moreover the House will be taking upon itself the burden of deciding whether it should adjourn, which is a primary thing it should decide, rather than have it dictated by the Government of the day at the very beginning of the Session. For these reasons I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, and will not say they cannot do so merelv because it has an old form of words which has been adopted before. From the point of view of many
36
Members of the House this form of words would be an improvement.
Earl WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I only desire to emphasise the fact that, at the outside, all the time that could be taken up in one day, if this Amendment is carried, cannot be more than half an hour. In any case the Debate on the Adjournment cannot go on after half past eleven o'clock, and the number of times in which it will be used is extremely few. This Session up to now it has only been used some three or four times. I venture to put to the Prime Minister that it is a most valuable right possessed by private Members. As it happens the opportunity of moving the Adjournment of the House has become much rarer during the last five or six years, and in place of that private Members have exercised the right of calling attention to matters when the question is put, "That this House do now adjourn." We have had valuable debates on such occasions. There was one some time ago in which the Home Secretary took part, and which disclosed some very important facts. It is a most valuable safety valve to be able to bring up matters of urgent importance before the House adjourns. It does no harm to the Government. It does not take up Government time. I think the Amendment proposed by my Noble Friend is a most important one, and if it were accepted, private Members would retain some slight vestige of the right to make their voices heard in the House.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I quite agree with the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) that this is a very important privilege which, if possible, private Members ought to possess. So far as I can see, when this Motion has been adopted, as on several occasions it has been adopted, there is scarcely any possibility at all for any private Member to raise matters of great importance. I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated that we shall have the right in future of moving the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance. Therefore that safety valve will still be left under the Motion. But the Motion is really drafted on lines with which we are familiar, though in view of what the Prime Minister has stated, we still have the right of moving the Adjournment of the House. It is, therefore, not correct to say that all opportunities for private Members moving the adjournment have gone. If it were possible

37
under the scheme of the Government, which is after all to get business through, including the Insurance Bill, I think it would be of great advantage to Members of the House, and also for the convenience of the Government, if the opportunity were given of raising questions before the House adjourned each night. I do think that when bringing Members from all parts of the country—I do not think anyone has come with any great enthusiasm for an Autumn Session—some little consideration might be given to the existence of private Members.
I will not go into the larger question whether we should have an Autumn Session at all. I must say, speaking frankly, that I think the Prime Minister is rather lenient to some of his more ambitious colleagues in the first Session of a new Parliament. I am not sure that the Prime Minister does not sympathise with that statement. I think the Government in the first Session of a new Parliament have attempted far too much, consistent with the easy working of the House, and even the ability and usefulness of the House. Having all these Committees going on upstairs, and great measures of far-reaching importance proposed touching almost every section of the community at one time, I do not regard as even an electioneering factor, or for the advantage of the House itself. We are in an Autumn Session, and we have to get to the consideration of a measure for which the Government have made themselves responsible. For my own part, I shall do nothing to interfere with the progress of that measure. At the same time, I think the Government might show a little consideration to private Members, who are rapidly losing all opportunity for raising any question in this House. It would conduce to the good working of business to allow such opportunity. As to the position of the measure which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his opening speech, namely, the House-Letting (Scotland) Bill—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in referring to that Bill now. He will have an opportunity of raising it on the main question.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I was rather afraid that I was getting on to narrow ground, and I am glad to have your assurance that it can be referred to later. If the Prime Minister will give a sympathetic assurance that he will regard with favour
38
our desire that the Scottish House Letting Bill shall be passed into law this Session, we will support the Government with regard to the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord.
The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend has opened up rather a wide field, and I do not think it would be in order if I were to attempt to follow him. He rebuked the Government for bringing forward an unnecessarily ambitious programme, and then he promised to vote with the Government on the Amendment of the Noble Lord opposite if the Government would add another measure to that programme. I am very anxious to see the House Letting (Scotland) Bill carried through, and I hope that something like general consent will be obtained. With regard to the Amendment of the Noble Lord, I would say that, so far from being hostile, as I am sometimes supposed to be, to opportunities being given to private Members for raising questions of public importance, I am myself in sympathy on the whole with the feeling that there is an undue curtailment of those opportunities through the operation of causes which no one party or another is exclusively responsible for, but which limit the field of opportunity. It is quite true that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House any question may be raised under the ordinary rule, and that then the discussion must come to an end at half-past eleven. But under this Amendment, when we suspend the Eleven o'clock rule, there will be no corresponding limitation of any discussion that might take place on the Adjournment, and the result would be that we might, on a Motion for the Adjournment, have a discussion unlimited in point of time, and absolutely unlimited as to the number of topics. It might last during the whole of the night, so far as the rule of the House is concerned. I do not think that would be for the general convenience of the House. On the contrary, I believe it would be a means of imposing a great additional burden on the burden which these autumn sittings impose on hon. Members. It is possible that it might take up an enormous amount of time, and you would have to keep enough people in the House—at least 100—in order to carry the Closure. I really think it would not be for the general interest of the House. On the other hand, hon. Members have the opportunity, under the ordinary rule, of moving the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent

39
public importance. I hope, therefore, the Noble Lord will not persist in his Amendment.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I can only speak with the indulgence of the House. If the only objection is that stated by the Prime Minister I should be glad to modify the Amendment to meet his views, especially as he said that he regarded it with favour. I propose that the Amendment should read "and thereupon within half-an-hour of the conclusion of Government business the House shall so adjourn."
Lord HUGH CECIL: May I remind the Prime Minister that the rule to which my Noble Friend refers has been found of practical convenience to the Government themselves. For instance, the Government might be anxious to make a statement to the House of great public interest under the rule which enables hon. Members to raise a question before the House adjourns. They might very easily make a statement in regard to matters arising in the labour world, or in connection with foreign affairs. Under the Motion proposed by the Prime Minister it would not be possible to make such a statement because the ordinary rule would be abolished.
The PRIME MINISTER: I agree with the Noble Lord, I am not indisposed to accept the Amendment if it is properly safe-guarded, and I think the words now proposed will supply an adequate safeguard. Will he read the words again?
Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Question amended, by leaving out the words "do adjourn the House without Question put," and inserting the words "propose the Question that this House do now adjourn, and thereupon, not later than half-an-half after the conclusion of Government Business, the House shall so adjourn."—[Viscount Helmsley.]
5.0 P.M.
Mr. LOUGH: I need hardly say that I do not rise to offer any opposition to the general Motion. My object in addressing the House for a few minutes is to endeavour to prevail on my right hon. Friend to give a little consideration to a most important subject which circumstances have brought to a critical condition during the Recess. I want to ask my right hon. Friend
40
whether the Resolution will give us an opportunity of discussing the Brussels Sugar Convention during the Autumn Session. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been very much interested in this matter for many years. I believe that he sympathises largely with what I am about to say with regard to this, but this would not be sufficient reason for obtruding it on your notice at the present time. I do so because circumstances have arisen which give the matter extraordinary importance just now. Practically there is a famine in one of the most important articles of food in this country. It has been caused to a large extent by the very dry weather which prevailed in the summer. But the famine did not prevail everywhere. In some places there was great abundance, and in other places great scarcity. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of this Convention, we shall not be able to avail ourselves of the great abundance which exists in Russia unless something is done to mitigate the position.
Action has been taken in our interests. An extraordinary Session of the Convention has been summoned for Thursday with the single object as it were of opening our gates to this most important article of food, which is the basis of many of our great manufactures. In these circumstances I do appeal to my right hon. Friend as to whether he will absolutely muzzle us in this House with regard to a matter which is causing the greatest suffering in the country. The price of that article of food has risen to an extent that lays a burden of eight millions a year on the backs of the people. Thousands of workmen are being thrown out of employment owing to the great scarcity of this article. In other countries this scarcity of food has been the cause of very considerable riots during the Recess. Martial law has been proclaimed, and Parliament has been called together to abolish the duties and to take instant steps to give relief to the people. We have the very same circumstances to complain of here, owing to the action of the Government, unintentionally—because I need not remind my right hon. Friend that three years ago a change was made by the Government in the situation with regard to this matter, when they thought that the change would be effective, though it is not effective—at this present moment our gates are closed, and there is great scarcity. In these circumstances, without entering too much into the details of the question now, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether

41
he will not promise to give us at least a day or half a day to discuss this most important matter, which is being felt most severely by great numbers of manufacturers?
I believe that the late Census shows that this question affects the greatest series of manufactures of all others in this country, and at the present time it is laying a heavy burden on the food of the people. If my right hon. Friend will allow us to discuss this matter it would give a great deal of satisfaction to many of his own supporters. My right hon. Friend should not be too much reassured by the support which the Opposition extended to this Motion. I was greatly struck by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not oppose it. We have heard no criticism of it from the other side of the House. The reason is that my right hon. Friend is adopting the methods that were invented by the Leader of the Opposition and Gentlemen on the opposite side, when they were in power, in bringing forward this Motion, which is a curtailment of the rights of the House and the liberties of the people of this country. Great events may happen any day while this House is in Session. Are we to be precluded from making any allusion to them or having any discussion about them, however gravely they may affect our own domestic affairs? Without any feeling of unfriendliness to the great objects which the Government have in view, I venture to call my right hon. Friend's attention to this matter and to ask him if he could see his way to promise that if a satisfactory conclusion is not arrived at, as I believe it will not be, on Thursday, with regard to the Sugar Convention, he will certainly give this House an opportunity of having a debate upon this most important matter.
Mr. PRIMROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if I am right in assuming that this Resolution in no way interferes with the assurance given to us in the summer that we should have a day for the discussion of the question of the appointment of magistrates?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to repeat a question which he put earlier in the day. My right hon. Friend having spoken on the original Motion, is precluded from speaking again. He asked the Prime Minister what arrangement the Government proposed to make for giving the
42
House an opportunity of discussing such matters as the English railway strike or the subsequent and independent Irish railway strike, or, again, of receiving from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a statement about foreign affairs, and of having a discussion thereon if the statement should be of a character to call for such discussion? The Prime Minister has not said anything about that. My Noble Friend below the Gangway also suggests the Railway Commission Report. The right hon. Gentleman has not spoken since my right hon. Friend, except on particular matters, and he has not dealt with those matters, and my right hon. Friend was anxious that we should have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what were the intentions of the Government with regard to them. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that though, as he said, this Motion strictly follows precedent, the course of business during the early part of the Session did not follow precedent.
I suppose that the Eleven o'clock Rule has been suspended far more often in this Session, and over a far longer space of time, than in any previous Session of Parliament since it was introduced. Day after day, without taking any general powers, our business began with the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for the day, and then in addition there was a Motion giving the Government a long time in the very early part of the Session. But that was not the only respect in which the Session was peculiar. The Prime Minister may remember that he took the whole of private Members' time before Easter and half their time after Easter. He has already made considerable inroads on the time which is free for Members to bring subjects of interest to themselves and their constituencies or of general interest to the country before the House on their own initiative. The whole programme of business has been to an extent which I believe is unparalleled in the hands of the Government, and the subjects of discussion have been regulated and controlled by them to an extent that I think never before has taken place. This is certainly the first time since the new Rules which govern private Members' business were framed that any attempt of this character has been made upon the time allotted to them. I submit to the House that this is an additional reason why, in making this Motion, the Government should show itself generous in regard to allocating time to

43
subjects which are of very widespread interest alike in, the House and in the country.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Before the Debate closes I do think we ought to know exactly where the House-Letting (Scotland) Bill stands. Unless we have an undertaking on the subject the House-Letting Bill is dead. That is practically the position. The Committee is called for one day next week. Is it the intention of the Government that the Committee shall go on considering the House-Letting Bill, and if the Committee considers it will the Government find time for it when it comes back to this House? As the Prime Minister is aware, the leaders on the opposite side repudiate with indignation any suggestion that they were against this Bill last Session, and their public speeches during the Recess declare their absolute adherence to the measure. What we ask is that they should be given an opportunity for proving that statement. I anticipate that in a very few hours the right hon. Gentleman's colleague on the left (Mr. Gulland) would be able, from his inquiries, to assure him that with all the circumstances of the Parliamentary position taken into consideration, it would give great satisfaction to all sections among the Scottish supporters of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill should be passed if possible during the present Session.
Captain CRAIG: I would like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to one special matter. That is a humble Address to His Majesty in reference to statutes laid on the Table of the House. As the House is aware, statutes under a great many of our Acts have to be laid on the Table for forty days, and before the expiration of those forty days it is open to this House to present an humble Address to His Majesty to have the statute altered if any error crops up. I do not wish to discuss the particular case which I have in view, but I may mention that a Statute has been presented by the new Irish University in Dublin to which grave exception has been taken, and if the forty days were not run out, in the ordinary course this House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter, and it would be the fault of the hon. Member concerned if he did not draw attention to it.
Mr. DILLON: The forty days have run out.
Captain CRAIG: No, they have not. I have taken the precaution to see that the forty days have not yet expired, but I was making inquiries at the Table, and I understand that this Motion of the Prime Minister will prevent the opportunity from arising of presenting an Address to His Majesty, no matter how grievous the wrong that may be done by the Statute. I do not suppose that there are very many cases in question. In fact, I do not suppose that there is any other except the one to which I am drawing attention. I had intended moving an Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion in order to safeguard these Addresses, but if the Prime Minister would say that he would put down this particular Motion which I am handing in at the Table, before the last Government order of the day, which would come on in the ordinary course, as it would come on if it were not for this Motion, then I shall not put down any Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion. I think, in the exceptional circumstances, and with the very short time that remains for disposing of this case, which happens to be a grave scandal, that the Prime Minister should allow this matter to be discussed without the necessity of putting an Amendment on the Paper. I appeal to his sense of fairness. A great many of us feel we have been unjustly treated, and that this Statute embodies an unfair and wasteful manner of dealing with public money, and therefore I hope that he will give us the privilege of being able to raise this question.
Mr. MORTON: There is a very strong feeling in Scotland with regard to the House Letting Bill, and I hope, therefore, that some arrangement will be made by which that Bill may be passed during this Session. I rose more particularly to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Wisbech Division (Mr. Neil Primrose) in pressing upon the attention of the Government the question of the appointment of justices. We had the promise of the Prime Minister, made some months back, in regard to the matter, and feeling is very strong in the country as to these appointments or non-appointments. My own constituents have strongly impressed upon me the necessity of stating their case to this House. I think they have been very hardly treated and I hope, therefore, that an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the subject in this House.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: The Prime Minister gave us a long list of legislation to be carried before the end of the year, but I would venture to suggest that, if there be any addition made to it, it should be the House Letting Bill. That measure might be sent up to the Scottish Grand Committee and passed through that stage along with other Scottish legislation before the end of the year. I believe that it would be possible in that way to pass the House Letting Bill at the same time as other Scottish legislation. It is only in this House that the people of Scotland can look for any attention being paid to this matter. They have waited a great many years, and at the present time I think there is less opposition to the proposal than there was formerly. It is generally recognised that this practice of long lets for houses in Scotland is so intolerable in certain industrial districts that the remedy proposed by the Bill is most urgently needed. I do hope that it will be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee, and put along with other Scottish legislation, so that it may have a chance of being carried this Session.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: We have been told that eighteen or nineteen days are to be given to the Insurance Bill. I wish to ask whether these will be consecutive days, or whether the consideration of the Insurance Bill will be interrupted in order to take the Finance Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the order in which the business will be taken.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It seems to me that the House-Letting Bill for Scotland is to be dropped, because it does not come within the definition of the Bills to be proceeded with. I want to have an assurance that it will not be dropped. This Bill is already long in arrears. It was introduced years ago. It has been before the people over and over again, and it deals with one of the most clamant questions in Scotland. The demand for the measure is urgent, and indignation is felt among the Scottish people that the Bill has not already been passed this Session. If the choice were between the House-Letting Bill and other Bills upon the programme I have not the slightest doubt the verdict of the electors of Scotland would be in favour of the passing of the House-Letting Bill, and the dropping of some other measure. The electors, almost independent of party, demand this Bill. The Shops Bill is a very important measure and a very complex one, but, taking my
46
own Constituency as an example, the Shops Bill only affects a limited number of people, though it affects them in an important respect, but when you come to the House-Letting Bill it is regarded in some respects as more important than the Shops Bill. If the choice were between the Shops Bill and the House-Letting Bill I should unhesitatingly give my support to the House-Letting Bill. We have suffered from neglect in Scottish affairs in the past—neglect which is a subject of very severe comment in Scotland, comment which will be increased if this Bill be dropped. I for one do not profess to speak for any of my colleagues, but I will say this, that I am not prepared by my vote to give the Government unfettered control for the rest of the Session without an assurance from them on this subject. Unless an assurance be given, I shall vote against the Resolution now before us.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I confess I am surprised that no Member of the Labour party has risen in support of the application of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for an opportunity to discuss labour troubles. It is said that we on this side of the House do not represent the working classes, and that it is in a peculiar sense the privilege of the Labour party. There is nothing so much in the minds of the working classes at the present moment as the labour troubles of the past two months and the Report of the Royal Commission. The working classes regard those questions as of greater importance than some of the minor Bills referred to. The Leader of the Labour party said it was quite right to support the Opposition against the Government when it was convenient to the Labour party, but as soon as it was not convenient then he and his friends would help the Government. In the meantime the Labour party, until they are elected by Labour votes, and not only by Liberal votes, will have to do in this House as they are told. I think it is the duty of the House of Commons to discuss what the Commons of England are interested in. It may be against the public interests to have foreign affairs discussed, but it is certainly in the public interests that we should have a proper discussion of these labour questions. On this side of the House we believe that the Government have incurred very grave moral responsibility for the reckless language which they used on an earlier occasion, I and it is proper that they should be I brought to book for it. The Royal Commission

47
Report is a matter of the highest interest to the working classes of this country. It has just been published: it raises very important points, and an opportunity should be given for some discussion of that Report in order that it may be properly elucidated to the public mind.
Mr. LAMB: My object in rising is to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and to point out that the desire to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission is not peculiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Some of us on these benches are anxious for a discussion, but I believe we have been silent because the Prime Minister said that some opportunity would be afforded for discussing the Report.
Mr. G. P. COLLINS: I desire to support those Scottish Members who have asked the Prime Minister for some assurance that the House-Letting Bill shall be passed this Session, and placed upon the Statute Book.
Mr. WATT: I also desire to join with my colleagues in the appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Government to push forward this measure with regard to House Letting in Scotland. As has been pointed out, this Bill has been anxiously wanted in Scotland for twenty-five years. It is practically a non-party measure, because it is favoured by those Scottish Members who belong to the Opposition. No candidate for any county or burgh in Scotland would have any chance of success if he dared to say a word against this Bill. I would point out to the Prime Minister that unless the Bill be passed in this Session it will not be possible to pass it three times through the House of Commons before it is finally dealt with by the House of Lords. In the past the other House has not been sympathetic to this measure; indeed, they have treated it in such a way that it has had to be dropped. The probability is that it will be treated in the same way by the other House next Session and the Session after, and if it is not passed in this Session through the House of Commons, then we will not be able to pass it the three times which are necessary. Therefore, it is very essential that the measure should pass in this Session.
Colonel GREIG: I want to join in the appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to the House Letting Bill. I do not go so far as to agree with all that has been said by my hon. colleagues below the Gangway, but, representing a large constituency, I
48
do urge that there should be an amendment of the law, and it would be a very great step if we could put this Bill on the Statute Book. I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that the Scottish Members are in town in full numbers, and, as this is a matter which would fall on their shoulders if it were sent to the Grand Committee—of course, I cannot speak for Scottish Members opposite—they would devote all their time and energy to getting the Bill through in time to be put on the Statute Book. I hope, with that assurance, the Prime Minister will see his way to allow the Bill to go to Grand Committee.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Scotland has been monopolising the attention of the House for some time, and I desire now to call attention to a matter which has relation to Ireland, where there has been a timber strike, or a railway strike, arising out of a timber trade dispute. It was a strike of a very disgraceful character. No strike has ever been begun in a more unjustifiable way than was the strike to which I refer, and a great many of us in Ireland feel that no strike has ever been so miserably handled by the Government of the day. We asked ourselves in Ireland during the progress of that strike where was the Chief Secretary all the time. It was the Chief Secretary's province to deal with that strike, yet, so far as we were aware, he was absent from Ireland, though he was in this country the whole of the time. From the very day the strike started, or the day after, I understand he was not in Ireland at all. If you contrast that with the action of the Government with regard to the railway strike in this country the House will at once observe that a totally different state of affairs existed in Ireland to what existed in this country, and that the railway strike, though it does not matter whether it was a railway strike or any other kind of strike, was handled by the representatives of the Government in an entirely different way. I need not say, because that strike figured largely in the English Press, that the very gravest dissatisfaction was felt in commercial and all communities in Ireland as to the way in which the Government neglected their duties with regard to that strike. My object in rising is to point out to the Prime Minister that this is essentially a matter for which the Government ought to give time for discussion. So far as I can see no occasion will arise under the Motion of the right hon.

49
Gentleman in which we would be able to raise this question. The consequence will be that months will intervene between now and next Session without this question having been brought before the House. I do say that so grave was the situation at the time as to the questions involved in this matter that we ought to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that some occasion, either on the report of the Railway Commission when it is discussed or some other occasion, should be provided for the discussion of this matter before the House adjourns prior to Christmas.
The PRIME MINISTER (who was indistinctly heard): The constituencies of the West of Scotland may congratulate themselves when they read their papers tomorrow morning on the assiduity of their representatives in forwarding their interests. It is possible for me as a Scottish Member, though my own Constituency is not very largely affected by the particular evils which arise in the West of Scotland, to say that I am heartily in sympathy with the House Letting Bill, as I think I have on more than one occasion shown. I need not say that the Bill has not been dropped as some hon. Members seem to understand. The six Bills which I read out have all passed through the Committee stage; the House-Letting Bill has not yet been through Standing Committee upstairs. It is going, I understand, to the Standing Committee next week I think, and I have no doubt it will emerge from it very rapidly. I hope and believe, and with that unanimity of opinion of the Scottish representatives I should be very sanguine, that it may fall within the category of Bills which will be passed before the close of the Session; and which the Government are anxious to promote. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) I understand that he wants an opportunity to discuss some Statute that has been made by the Irish University Commission. I have not heard of the matter, and I do not know what particular circumstances there may have been, but there is no difficulty technically, provided the opportunity can be afforded. If I find on investigating the facts that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking merely for himself, but represents a considerable body of opinion, then I assure him I should do my best to provide him with the opportunity.
Captain CRAIG: If the right hon. Gentleman investigates the facts I am
50
afraid hon. Members below the Gangway will prevent it coming forward.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not mean by investigating the facts forming an opinion on the merits. I want to find out what the Statutes are, how many days they still have to run before they operate, and so forth. The hon. Gentleman may rely on it I will endeavour to do him justice. With regard to the larger question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the bench opposite as to opportunities for discussing the administrative policy of the Government, I have to say this. As regards foreign affairs, I think it is not only natural and legitimate but most desirable that in the course of our Sittings a full statement should be made by the Foreign Secretary both as regards Morocco and, possibly, as regards other matters which may then be ripe for public exposition and discussion. I hope and believe that that statement when it is made will be of such a nature as not to lead to anything in the shape of acrimonious or even controversial discussion. That it should be made here, and that it should be made at the earliest convenient opportunity in the public interest, I entirely agree. Obviously, it is impossible to anticipate precisely the date on which my right hon. Friend will be prepared to make his statement, but it certainly will not be later than the date to which, in the public interest, it is necessary to postpone it. I should not like to say precisely, but I hope that it will be in the course of a fortnight or three weeks. As regards the administrative action of the Government at home in relation to the labour troubles, either here or in Ireland, I am most anxious that the House should have the opportunity, if it so desires, of venturing on those matters. It is very difficult to promise a specific time for discussion when you have no notice as to what form it is to take or in what manner it is to be initiated A mere discussion in the air is of a very unsatisfactory nature, but if those who are interested would give notice to the Government of the form in which they desire to bring it forward I can assure them there will be no disposition on our part to avoid it.
The Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) assumed the rôle of champion of the labouring classes in this country, and spoke of the silence of the Labour party as to a discussion of the Report of the Railway Commission. I understood the hon.

51
Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), when he was speaking to ask for an opportunity for discussion, and it was therefore not necessary to repeat that request. I do not know whether there is a general desire that that Report should be discussed. I think myself it would be in the interests of everybody, of all parties concerned, that before such a discussion is initiated full time should be given for the consideration of that Report in all its bearings. It is not, so far as I understand it, and I am only speaking very superficially, because I have not had myself time to give proper attention to the matter—it is not a matter either of legislation or administration. It is not a matter, therefore, with which the Government, as a Government, are primarily concerned. It is a series of recommendations made by an authoritative, impartial, and representative body to the different interests—the railway companies on the one side and the railway workers on the other. Primarily it is a matter for those interested and concerned how far the recommendations are acceptable, and to what extent. I am not at all sure whether a Parliamentary discussion at this stage, and in this phase, would tend to any useful purpose, but if on reflection and consideration there is a general desire and disposition in various quarters of the House to have the matter discussed, then it will be extremely difficult for the Government to refuse to give that opportunity, but I venture, with all respect, to draw that preliminary caution, because I am not at all sure that Parliamentary discussion at this stage is desirable. I think that exhausts the questions.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: There is my question as to the precedence of Bills?
The PRIME MINISTER: The idea is to proceed with the Committee stage of the Insurance Bill first, and then to interpose a delay, in which probably the Finance Bill or other measures will be taken. With regard to the Magistracy, I gave an undertaking before the House adjourned which, in the time at our disposal, we were unable to carry out, but if hon. Members who are moving in this matter are still desirous of the opportunity—
Mr. MORTON: I certainly am.
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to measure the amount of support behind my hon. Friend before I make any rash
52
promises on the subject. With regard to the Sugar Convention, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) is a past master in the matter, and some of the things he has stated to-day are entirely new to me, but I am sure, coming from him, they are entitled to consideration. I will promise him I will see how far it merits the allocation of some of the very scanty Parliamentary time which, after all the undertakings I have given, remains at our disposal. I think that exhausts the catalogue of questions, and I trust the House will now agree to the Motion.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has given an answer to certain claims made on him, and I think, perhaps, if we were to pretermit our rights at this stage we might be accused hereafter of not having availed of this discussion to mention a particular subject. I am referring to the Report of the Secret Committee or Commission on the subject of Irish Finance. That Committee has been sitting for, I think, very nearly eight or nine months, and the subject which the Committee had to consider was by no means as intricate or difficult as that which the Railway Commission managed to dispatch in the course of four or five weeks. Being as we are on the eve of a promised measure of self-government for Ireland, and as I attach more importance to the question of finance in regard to that measure than I do to any other matter which it is supposed to contain, I think we are entitled to know first when the Commission is likely to report, and, secondly, whether any opportunity will be given in the course of this Autumn Session to enable a discussion to take place. The Government have taken the unusual course of placing upon that Commission a most respected Bishop of the Catholic Church, and, although, in regard to the general opinion of the Bishops of Ireland on the Insurance Bill they have entirely rejected the opinion of the Irish Hierarchy, in connection with that measure, I understand they do attach enormous importance to the opinion of a single ecclesiastic. That being so, and this measure being one which goes to the root of the entire Irish difficulty it is not now too much to ask at this stage after these incubations, when the report is likely to be made, and what opportunity if any will be given for the discussion of the report.
The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said before, it was a purely confidential inquiry, undertaken at the request of the Government for their information, the

53
report of the Committee to be submitted to the Government. That report is a confidential document for the information of the Government, with a view to legislation, and it would be entirely contrary to precedent at this stage to make it the subject of Parliamentary discussion.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Why, if this was a purely confidential inquiry, was it first publicly mentioned by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as an important part of his Irish policy? And why were the names of the gentlemen forming this purely confidential tribunal disclosed to the House and to the country? If it was necessary to tell the House and the country that much about their proceedings, on what principle does the Prime Minister conceal from the House the more important facts in reference to the Committee, namely, the conclusions they have come to?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not concealing anything. We are now in possession of a confidential document, and the ton. Member's request is not, it seems to me, a very reasonable one. We gave the names of the Commissioners at his express request. He was full of all kinds of suspicion and doubt as to the gentlemen to whom this confidential inquiry was to be entrusted, and to allay those suspicions, and to satisfy those doubts, we gave the names of the Commissioners.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The names of the Commissioners only increased our doubts.
Mr. LANSBURY: In connection with the railway troubles and the general unrest, have the Government forgotten that when the House adjourned in August there was a generally expressed opinion that the food supply of the country must
be kept open, and such a thing as a general strike on the railways obviated, and that if this could not be done by the companies and the men concerned Parliament ought to take measures to deal with the matter? Is the Prime Minister aware that the men have practically unanimously rejected the findings of the Commission, and that up and down the country appeals are being made calling upon the leaders to make arrangements for another general strike? I ask the House whether we ought not to tackle that question now rather than after the event, when we may have the Executive put to the more or less painful necessity of again shooting down unarmed citizens in the streets. Instead of devoting so much time to the imposition of a poll tax on the great mass of the workers, might we not devote our time to considering how to improve the lot of the 100,000 railwaymen who earn less than £1 per week? Speaking for myself, I consider that there is no question of anything like so great importance as the fact that large masses of our working people live in conditions of destitution and poverty every day of their lives. For me, at any rate, there is no question—neither Welsh Disestablishment nor Home Rule, nor any other of the questions about which we hear so much—of anything like so great importance as the condition of the people question. I would press on the Prime Minister the absolute necessity before another strike takes place of this House doing its duty by at least attempting to redress the grievances of the men with whom all of us professed so much sympathy before we went for our holidays a month or two ago.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 145.

Division No. 342.]

AYES.

[5.53 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Chapple, Dr, William Allen

Acland, Francis Dyke

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clancy, John Joseph

Adamson, William

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Addison, Dr. C.

Boland, John Plus

Clynes, John R.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Brace, William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Armitage, Robert

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Brunner, John F. L.

Cowan, W. H.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Bryce, J. Annan

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crooks, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crumley, Patrick

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Barnes, G. N.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cameron, Robert

Dawes, James Arthur

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Delany, William

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

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Bentham, G. J.

Chancellor, Henry George

Devlin, Joseph

Dillon, John

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Donelan, Captain A.

Kelly, Edward

Pointer, Joseph

Doris, William

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Power, Patrick Joseph

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Leach, Charles

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Raffan, peter Wilson

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

Logan, John William

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Reddy, Michael

Falconer, James

Lundon, Thomaa

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lyell, C. H.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Rendall, Athelstan

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Field, William

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macpherson, James Ian

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

France, Gerald Ashburner

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rowlands, James

Gill, Alfred Henry

M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

Rowntree, Arnold

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Glanville, Harold James

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

Goldstone, Frank

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Martin, Joseph

Scanlan, Thomas

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Greig, Colonel James William

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Meagher, Michael

Sheehy, David

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Millar, James Duncan

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Hancock, John George

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Summers, James Woolley

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mooney, John J.

Tennant, Harold John

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Morgan, George Hay

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morrell, Philip

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Muldoon, John

Toulmin, Sir George

Harwood, George

Munro, Robert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Verney, Sir Harry

Hayward, Evan

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wadsworth, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Needham, Christopher T.

Walters, John Tudor

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Wardle, George J.

Higham, John Sharp

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Waring, Walter

Hinds, John

Nuttall, Harry

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hoit, Richard Durning

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Webb, H.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Dowd, John

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ogden, Fred

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

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, James

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Malley, William

Wilkie, Alexander

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

John, Edward Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Johnson, William

O'Shee, James John

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

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

Joyce, Michael

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Keating, Matthew

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Bull, Sir William James

Baird, John Lawrence

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Burn, Col. C. R.

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Butcher, John George

Balcarres, Lord

Bigland, Alfred

Campion, W. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Cassel, Felix

Barnston, Harry

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Cator, John

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

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Cautley, Henry Strother

56

57

Cave, George

Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildlord)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Horner, Andrew Long

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Chambers, James

Hunt, Rowland

Rolleston, Sir John

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Clyde, James Avon

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rothschild, Lionel de

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Courthope, George Loyd

Jowett, Frederick William

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sanderson, Lancelot

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Crean, Eugene

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Smith, Harord (Warrington)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Larmor, Sir J.

Snowden, Philip

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Stanier, Beville

Doughty, Sir George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Starkey, John Ralph

Duke, Henry Edward

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Stewart, Gershom

Falle, Bertram Godfray

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Fell, Arthur

Mackinder, Halford J.

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

M'Mordie, Robert

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Fleming, Valentine

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Touche, George Alexander

Gardner, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Valentia, Viscount

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Gretton, John

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Guiney, Patrick

Newman, John R. P.

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

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Haddock, George Bahr

Nield, Herbert

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

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Younger, Sir George

Hills, J. W.

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

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Mr. Lansbury and Mr. W. Thorne.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and have precedence at every Sitting; that, at the conclusion of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and thereupon, not later than half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government Business, the House shall so adjourn; that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday; and that no Motion, except by the Government, be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.—
[PROGRESS, 4th August].
Further considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Mr. J. H. WHITLEY was cheered upon taking the Chair.

CLAUSE 18.—(Conditions for the Approval of Approved Societies.)
(1) Any society, that is to say, any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate
58
(not being a branch of another such body), registered or established under any Act of Parliament, which gives such security as is required to be given under this Part of this Act, and otherwise complies with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies, may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and if so approved shall be an approved society for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(2) No society shall receive the approval of the Insurance Commissioners unless it satisfies the following conditions:—

(i) It must have at least ten thousand members, being insured persons;

(ii) It must be precluded by its constitution from distributing any of its funds otherwise than by way of benefits (whether benefits under this Act or not) amongst its members;

(iii) Its affairs must be subject to the absolute control of its members;

(iv) Its constitution must provide for the election of all its committees, representatives, and officers by its members.

(3) A society may apply for approval at any time before or after the commencement of this Act, and a society with less than ten thousand members being insured

59
persons which otherwise fulfils the requirements of this Section may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners conditionally upon its having the requisite number of such members within such time as the Insurance Commissioners may allow.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to move to report Progress, not with a view of causing a very long discussion, but in order that the Committee on resuming, may know exactly where they stand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself asked leave to move to report Progress before the House left the discussion of the Bill in August, in order that he might, as I think he called it, "take stock" of the situation. I do not desire, though I recall that precedent, to go nearly so far as the right hon. Gentleman went on that occasion. I do not think it would be desirable at this moment probably, or under present circumstances, that we should enter upon a general stock-taking of the whole position, nor indeed do I think that that is the way in which our deliberations can best be helped. But we are aware that during the recess, and especially during the later portion of it, the right hon. Gentleman has been very busy with interviews and negotiations, and he has indicated to various bodies and in different ways that very material alterations are to be made in the Bill. I think it will be admitted on all sides of the House that it is extremely difficult for anyone, to gather from these scattered sources of information, and these often imperfect accounts of intentions what exactly the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman are, or what is the Bill which we are now going to be asked to discuss. It is not the Bill which is printed. It is some other proposal.
All that I wish at this point on the general question to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that I hope he will table with the least possible delay the important series of Amendments which he has adumbrated; and that he will circulate with them an explanatory memorandum stating what is the effect which each is intended to make in the Bill as it stands, and what the Bill will be if that Amendment is accepted. That is my general appeal. Now I come to the particular matter for which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I move to report Progress. We are entering upon a clause which deals with approved societies. I think that before we discuss particular Amendments in
60
regard to approved societies that it would be of great assistance to the House, and indeed is a necessity for the proper consideration by the House of the Amendments to which we are coming, that we should have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a clear and definite statement as to what are his present intentions in regard to approved societies. What is to be an approved society? What are the conditions under which approved societies will be admitted? What are the classes of societies which he proposes to include? What changes, if any, must they make in their constitution in order to conform to the terms of the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman is going to amend if? I think I have said enough to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer the character of the information which we think he might give us, and I do not desire to delay these proceedings of the Committee a moment longer than is necessary for the purpose I have indicated. He will see that I have asked for two things: an immediate and definite statement as to a particular point and a particular clause, and a promise of much more general, but equally definite information in a printed form at the earliest possible moment as to the other great changes which we are making in the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: Before I put that Question to the Committee I think I ought to remind the Committee of the ruling which I gave on the last day on which we discussed this Bill, when a similar Motion was put from the Chair. In order to defend the Committee for the future, I felt compelled to protest against the extent to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion travelled on the Motion to report Progress. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has asked for Papers as to the introduction of some Amendments, I think he is entitled to the information asked for. For that purpose, therefore, I put the Question to the Committee, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I certainly do not complain of the very reasonable demand of the right hon. Gentleman, but as I only received notice a few minutes ago I am not quite prepared to deal with the question. I think it would be better that I should make a full and complete statement upon the matter, and I would infinitely prefer if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to renew his Motion after we have disposed of the one

61
or two Amendments—not very important—on Sub-section (1). If he would not mind renewing his Motion when we get to Sub-section (2) on the question of approval and the condition upon which the Commissioners will insist before they approve a society, I shall be prepared to make a full statement. I am not quite prepared now, as I only received notice a minute ago.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think we are entitled on this Motion to have some statement which will relieve us from intervention on what may be supposed to be of purely British concern by knowing when the Amendments affecting Ireland will be placed on the Paper. The position of the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, is that he is in communication with certain sections of the Irish people. Of that I make no complaint whatever. But what the general body of Irishmen, be they Conservative or Liberal, are entitled to know before we reach Clause 59 is, what are the Amendments in regard to Ireland which the Government propose. When shall we learn what are the purposes and intentions of the Government as regards Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman must know, in regard to one point only, which has raised great alarm, that we are anxious that a society, purely sectarian in its character, and having a purely political object, shall not be endowed at the hands of the British Government. I intend to move an Amendment myself upon that subject, and I wish to know whether this Bill is going to be an endowment for a particular secret society in Ireland, or whether the Bill will be confined to really bonâ fide benefits to friendly societies in which Irishmen, irrespective of religion, can take part?
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be out of order if he begins to reply to questions of that kind. As regards putting down certain Amendments, it is quite within his purview to reply.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, on the whole, I should not enter into the second part of the question of the hon. and learned Member. In regard to the question of Amendments on the Irish Clause, I agree that those Amendments ought to be down in time. It is rather a long way off, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that there will be ample time for his purpose when the time limit appears.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If I may I shall adopt the suggestion of the Chancellor and withdraw my Motion now with the intention of proposing it again at the point he suggests.
Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament."
These words were unnecessary, perhaps they were unfortunate in the Bill as drawn, and I contend now after the Amendments have been promised us they are less fortunate still, and perhaps even more unnecessary. What are the societies which are to come within the definition "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament." No doubt the large friendly societies are registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and that gives them an absolutely legal status; it enables them to take advantage of the facilities of the Act, and to hold their property under certain trustees by whom suits can be brought, and against whom actions can be brought. There are other classes of societies established under Acts of Parliament. I think I am right in saying that in a good many cases where large numbers of workmen are employed large corporations have embodied the purposes of the Friendly Societies Acts by means of adopting what I may call the Companies Acts system. We also have a number of cases in which by means of special Acts of Parliament societies have been brought into being such as the Special Provision in Railway Acts, to enable what are really friendly societies among railway employés to have facilities which otherwise would not belong to them. All these are large societies, and all these would come within the meaning of the words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament." But the Chancellor has indicated that he is not going to adhere to the limit 10,000; he has indicated that he is anxious to give the advantage of the Bill to a great number of other and smaller societies. He has indicated that in the very last Amendments he has issued and to which he has attached a memorandum that in certain cases county and local societies may be grouped.
There are a number of societies, if I am correctly informed, which could not if these words remain in the section take advantage of the Act. That applies, I think,

63
more particularly to the country districts, but there are a number of them, and also distributing societies who are not registered at the present time or established under any Act of Parliament.
Mr. BOOTH: Why not?
Mr. POLLOCK: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's interruption, which I have no doubt was intended courteously, but I do not appreciate it.
Mr. BOOTH: I simply wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain why they are not registered.
Mr. POLLOCK: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate my argument, nor does it matter in the slightest degree why they are registered. The fact remains that a large number of societies are not registered for some reason, good, bad, or indifferent. I need not debate the reason why, and I need not trouble to answer the question. It is enough for me to know that there are large numbers of societies that are not registered. I know the hon. Gentleman represents, or is credited with representing, in the interests of a great number of what are called collecting societies, and he may know the reason why a large number of the smaller societies have not registered or established themselves under any Act of Parliament. Be that as it may, I am pleading for a large number of small deposit societies and the like, scattered throughout the country, whose interests are being brought to the notice of the Committee, and in whose interest considerable modifications are now going to be made in the Bill. If we are to have a system of grouping together county and local societies, is there any ground at all for saying that these societies should first of all go through the process of registering themselves and establishing themselves under any Act of Parliament.
If I read the Bill aright, and it is quite true that one only has a portion of the scheme now in the Bill, it is surely in this very Clause made a condition that these societies will have to satisfy a number of conditions which must be fulfilled before the societies can take advantage of the Bill. I am contending it is an unnecessary qualification to impose upon them to insist that they shall register themselves under an Act of Parliament such as the Friendly Societies Act or to establish and incorporate themselves under the Companies Act or other Act before they get
64
the advantage of this Bill. The conditions therefore to be imposed upon them are quite sufficient. Statements have to be exacted from them, and their positions fully ascertained by those conditions in the other Sub-sections in the Bill. I contend that these words which I propose to leave out when they were originally put into the Bill, were unreasonable conditions to impose upon the smaller societies, and ought now no longer to remain in the Bill. We are really imposing upon these societies conditions which they are not at the present moment compelled to fulfil. They may be necessary when considering under the Bill large societies of not less than 10,000 members, but when the facilities are to be opened more widely to smaller societies, I contend these words ought to be deleted from the Bill, and it is on these grounds I move my Amendment.
Mr. BOOTH: The object of my intervention, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly thought, was meant to be friendly. I was anxious to know whether the hon. Gentleman could give to the Committee any reason which I have not been able to find, why there are societies unregistered. So far as my examination has gone, the reason is chiefly because of the nature of their business, or of their conduct of affairs, or the places in which they meet, or the way in which they control their investments. Because of these things they cannot comply with the very simple and very easy terms of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Some of these societies lend money to their members, some distribute their funds in beanfeasts and in parties and so on, and not wishing to comply with the very simple rules of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, they know that they can get through as they like. Further, their officials need not be responsible to their members in the same way as they would if they had established rules.
What does registration mean? It means adopting a definite constitution, rules and a scale of benefits which have to be submitted to the registrar. I urge that this issue should not be complicated, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of the House, who are anxious to form groups of the smaller societies that this work should not be made more difficult by having to deal with people whose objects are so strange that no one else would like to combine with them. If they are perfectly sound societies they can register when this Bill

65
gets through and even long before it comes into operation. If they are sound in their management there is no difficulty whatever in the Bill. I would remind the Committee that this is not an Amendment which we would expect from a champion of law and order or from a distinguished member of the legal profession. The object surely of asking these small societies to go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies is because he would stand by them as a friendly counsellor. They would avoid large legal expenses and the complications of company law. The Registrar of Friendly Societies invariably considers himself their friend and counsellor, and makes suggestions for their good guidance. What can be the reason they have not done so before? If they are ignorant of it this Bill will speedily tell them that there is a friend to whom they may have access. I am certain it will be a very beneficial experience for them, but if you put them on an equality with those you have registered or complied with the Acts of Parliament I feel that you will be only adding a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty. I am sure I am voicing the views of the great friendly societies and the large dividing societies and deposit societies in urging the Committee that while there should be equality of treatment, at any rate it should only be for bonâ fide concerns that have taken the trouble to register. I know of no reason why any of these societies that are genuine and bonâ fide should not register. In these circumstances it seems to me a very simple but very necessary thing to say that the Bill contemplates such societies as are registered under Act of Parliament.
Mr. CASSEL: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who just sat down really shows that he does not quite appreciate the effect of the Bill as it will be if this Amendment is passed. It is perfectly true that now there are a large number of societies which have not registered. It may be due in numerous cases to the fact that they wished to escape the restrictions which the Friendly Societies Act places upon them. In other cases it may be due to ignorance, but, whatever the cause, we have now to consider what will be their position under the Bill, because even if they will not register they will be under all the conditions which the Bill imposes upon them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am surprised that any hon. Member questions that. I Submit they will be subject if they want to become approved societies, whether registered or not, under
66
any other Act, the Friendly Societies Act or the Companies Act, to the conditions which the Bill imposes. The only point is this. Are they to be subject to register, both when they become approved societies under this Act and also to register under the Companies Act and the Friendly Societies Act as well? I think it will be quite sufficient safeguard to bring them under the conditions of approved societies under this Act, and therefore, having confronted them with all the conditions that this Act imposes, they should not be compelled to adopt the conditions of some other Act as well, because under this Act they would be liable to all the provisions with regard to the valuation of their funds, to all the provisions which prevent them spending their funds upon any other purposes than the purposes of this Act; they would be liable to all the provisions with regard to having their rules approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and are you going to say that, in addition to all these, they shall have to comply with the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act as well? That is the whole point. All they will have to do, even with those words in, will be to form themselves into a limited company, and then they can escape the provision of the Friendly Societies Acts. Is it not absurd to make it a necessity that you should register under the Companies Act with a capital of seven farthings? Any society which is not bonâ fide could get out of these words by simply registering with a capital of seven farthings. Therefore it is a nugatory provision if it is intended to impose any further restrictions than those imposed under this Act. This is quite unnecessary and very inconvenient. A great many employers have superannuation funds, and they are not registered under any Act of Parliament. In order to become approved societies every superannuation fund will have to become registered as a limited company or a friendly society. If "society" has to have this meaning, it is the same meaning as in Section 19, and it follows that every employer's superannuation fund will have to be registered either as a friendly society or as a limited company, and what benefit you will get from that I fail to see. I should like to ask whether it would be possible for any society under this Act to register as a friendly society at all? In order to register as a friendly society the contributions must be voluntary. The Friendly Societies Act provides that it is an absolute condition that the contributions shall

67
be voluntary; that is provided for by one of the Sections of the Act. Certainly there may be great difficulty in a society which wishes to carry on business under this Act registering under the Friendly Societies Act at all. The main point on which I support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is that you will be imposing a wholly unnecessary and useless burden by this provision upon a number of societies and upon a number of employers' superannuation funds which are perfectly fit to come in under this Bill, and in regard to which adequate safeguards and checks are imposed by the provisions of the Bill itself. If these provisions are not sufficient and adequate, then the proper remedy is to strengthen those provisions and safeguards, and not put in an illusory provision which can be evaded by registering under the Companies Act with a capital of seven farthings.
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I support this Amendment, and I will place before the Committee the specific case of the Royal Provident Society, which is registered under Royal Charter. It is under no Act of Parliament. It was a society formed out of a large sum of money at the disposal of King Edward many years ago. There are 16,000 fishermen in that society. As the Act now stands, they will not be able to become an approved society, and they will be prevented from admission within the folds of an approved society. Therefore I think it will be much wiser if these words are left out, because this particular society, and a number of others, will not be able to become approved societies should they desire to do so.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The question which has been raised in this discussion has been occupying our thoughts after having observed the Amendments on the Paper, and more especially having regard to what has taken place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the Amendments proposed by the Government. I would like to say it seems to me there is a way in which we can meet the views of my hon. Friend behind me and the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment. What we desire to do, and what the Government have in mind, is to preserve some constitution in these societies which will ensure, at any rate, that they are sound so far as we can, by regulating the provision under which they are put forward. In regard to the larger societies,
68
or, at any rate, the majority of them, they come under the statutes which regulate them, or else they are established under the Friendly Societies Acts, or one or other of the kindred Acts, and there is no difficulty with regard to them. It does occur to me that there may be a difficulty with regard to the smaller societies, although I do not think from what we know that the difficulty is quite as serious as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think. A number of them are now registered, and I have no doubt that a larger number still will register before the Act is in force, and there is nothing to prevent societies registering after the Act comes into force. Nevertheless I do feel that there may be smaller societies which have an objection to registration which have not registered and do not desire to register. Very often I think it is a sentimental objection, but it exists, and what I suggest and intend to propose is to make it clear in an Amendment which I will propose if this Amendment is negatived.
My proposal is that there shall be a right given to societies, notwithstanding that they are not registered, to form their constitution in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners for that purpose. The object of that is this: you have cleared out of the way by the words I will assume that are left in by this Amendment and by your Friendly Societies Act or large societies; you have dealt with these points, and you have allowed them to come in as approved societies. Everything that is registered can come in. What we want to deal with is the objection of some smaller societies to registration so long as they really have a constitution formed in accordance with regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners. We shall be quite satisfied they are not to go through the form of registering under any of those Acts, but will be entitled to come in as approved societies. In that case we meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and we have also met the objection raised by the Mover of this Amendment. I will now deal with the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Grimsby. The case mentioned was not present to the minds of the framers of the Bill when the measure was drafted, and they did not contemplate that there might be societies constituted under Royal Charter. It is quite right that the societies to which the hon. Baronet has referred should be included. I therefore propose, if this Amendment is negatived

69
or withdrawn, to do what I have indicated, and move an Amendment to insert after the words, "registered or established under any Act of Parliament," the following words, "or by Royal Charter, or if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners." I submit to the Committee that the insertion of those words will meet the points which have been raised.
Mr. FORSTER: It seems to me that the suggestion put forward by the Attorney-General will probably meet the views of my hon. and learned Friend behind me. After all, it seems to me that the words of the Attorney-General attain the object which we have in view. What they have in view is the removal of the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament." That would give an opportunity to any society of becoming an approved society so long as the Insurance Commissioners were willing to give their approval. It seems to me that the words suggested by the Attorney-General cover the same ground.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I agree with what the learned Attorney-General has said with reference to the smaller societies, but I am not quite so satisfied that his proposed Amendment exactly meets the case. So far as my views are concerned, if you omit the words, "having so registered," I shall be very pleased. What virtue is there in a mere registration of a society as such under any Act of Parliament? It is not as if a friendly society was specified, or as if there was a suggestion that it should be under the Friendly Societies Acts. I know a number of industrial provident societies registered for a wholly different purpose, and that is no guarantee that those societies are either solvent for this purpose or fit to carry out the purposes for which this Bill was introduced. I suggest that although the Attorney-General's Amendment will be quite satisfactory to me, I prefer the omission of the words "having so registered." As long as the society requires registration as one of the conditions, I suggest that the purport of this particular Clause may be defeated by the registration of the society not intended as an insurance society and yet turned into an approved society for the purpose of this Bill.
Mr. CASSEL: I should like to ask the Attorney-General how he meets the case
70
of an employer who has a superannuation fund? Generally they are not registered. Would the Attorney-General in that case either require registration or approval of any constitution of the society by the Insurance Commissioners? The other point I would like to call attention to is whether there will not be some difficulty in registering as a friendly society a society formed for the purpose of carrying on business under this Act, having regard to the fact that the contributions are not voluntary, and that friendly societies are confined to societies whose contributions are voluntary.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Perhaps I might answer the questions put by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the society is constituted without at any rate such registration as would commend itself to the Insurance Commissioners, or would bring the society within the regulations prescribed by the Commissioners, it would have to amend its constitution so as to come within them. It must also be borne in mind that the Commissioners must deal with this matter under the Act. They will have the conditions before them, and, of course, when they have to settle whether a society is an approved society or not they will have to consider all the conditions. I do not think there will be any difficulty with regard to the other question, but in order that there should be no difficulty in the case of any society which should desire to be registered hereafter, it might conform at once, and would conform inasmuch as it was a friendly society, with the regulations to be prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners. There would, therefore, be no difficulty. It could either register as a friendly society or it could come in under the regulations to be prescribed. Provided always you have got the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners as a mimimum standard, I do not think there is any real difficulty.
Viscount WOLMER: Do we understand that the words "not being a branch of another such body" are to be omitted?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No.
Mr. POLLOCK: After the explanation and suggestion made by the Attorney-General, I do not desire to press the Amendment to a Division. I have no desire to allow all societies to come in without having any sort of control at all. I do not intend to introduce what I may call amorphous societies, but I want the

71
door to be as open as possible. It seems to me the suggestion of the Attorney-General will meet the case, and, under those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask the Attorney-General to consider a little further how the Clause will read if these words are adopted? I do not think there is now much division of opinion, in substance, between the two sides of the House, between my hon. Friend and those who support him and the-Attorney-General, but I admit I do not quite understand why the Attorney-General adopts such a cumbrous method of giving effect to what is everybody's wish. Surely the words which my hon. Friend proposes to omit become wholly immaterial? As the Clause was drawn, a society must be registered or established under an Act of Parliament as one of the conditions of being an approved society, and it must in addition to that give such security and so forth, as stated on the next page of the Bill. Now you say, whether it be registered or not, if it gives that security it shall come in. You remove the condition that it need be registered or established under an Act of Parliament, and you admit a society which is neither one nor the other. The governing condition is the giving of the security required on the next page of the Bill.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is not the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment, of course, does not touch any of the subsequent conditions, which are conditions precedent to registration as an approved society. All it does is to open the door wider so as the admit societies which otherwise could not come in. If we only had the words at present in the Bill, a number of societies, which are neither registered nor come under an Act of Parliament, but which might be quite willing to give the security and conform with the other conditions, would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and in order to meet that we have said that so long as their constitution is framed in accordance with regulations framed by the Insurance Commissioners we will then admit them, always providing, of course, they conform to the other prescribed conditions.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Attorney-General has not appreciated my point, though I think I have appreciated his. What he said does not contradict
72
what I intended to say. As the Bill was drawn, you had two sets of conditions: the prior condition that the society was to be registered or established under an Act of Parliament, and the subsequent condition embodied on the next page of the Bill—that they should give such security as is required under this Act, and otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies. Both those conditions had to be fulfilled before they could become approved societies. Now the Attorney-General agrees to give up the first or prior condition, and it is no longer necessary a society should be registered or embodied under an Act of Parliament in order to become an approved society, but it is still necessary you should fulfil the other condition. I submit, therefore, that to carry out what is now the common purpose of the Committee, it is not necessary to have these words "Registered or established under any Act of Parliament" in the Bill. It is not going to admit every society which is registered or established, and it is not going to exclude every society which is not registered or established. Under the proposed Amendment of the Attorney-General those words become mere surplusage and immaterial. I would not press the matter if it did not make the Clause extraordinary cumbrous. My right hon. Friend, to whom I have read it over, observed to me privately that it was not Addisonian. I doubt whether it is even legal. At least it is so complicated that I do urge upon the Attorney-General, if he can shorten the Clause and simplify its language without altering its effect, he will be wise to do so. Just let me read again what the Clause is with this Amendment:
"Any society, that is to say, any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate (not being a branch of another such body), registered or established under any Act of Parliament or by Royal Charter, or, if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners which gives such security as is required," etc.
Is it legal language? It is certainly not English to say the words apply to "any society" which precede them by some half dozen lines and have no reference to the conjunction immediately preceding. Surely they would be read as referring to the constitution and not to "any society" at the beginning of the Clause. At any rate, no school teacher in any school in the

73
country would allow a pupil to send up an essay couched in such language as the Attorney-General proposes to put into the Bill. I submit the language is not only cumbrous but absolutely unnecessary. It would be much simpler to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and not put in the previous definition, leaving the definition on page 17, which will, under the proposal of the Attorney-General, be, in fact, the governing condition.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I sympathise with the first statement of the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment (Mr. Pollock), and especially with that of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty), with reference to a society established by Royal Charter, and I quite agree cases of that description ought to be admitted, but I think the Attorney-General has gone much too far in the words he has suggested. Earlier in the evening we heard a suggestion that it might be possible under the Bill, even as it stands, without this broad Amendment as now proposed by the Attorney-General, for certain political organisations to become registered, and I understood we were going to propose Amendments that would make that almost impossible. The Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General would, as a matter of fact, enable the Tariff Reform League, or the Free Trade Union, or any other political organisation in the country that chose between now and the Bill becoming law to give proper security and draw up a constitution satisfactory to the Commissioners. They need not be registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and they need have no connection with the Trade Union Movement. There is no description whatever for them except bodies of men collected together for any purpose whatever. So long as they are prepared to do that, they can become approved societies. The hon. Member opposite feared lest certain political organisations in Ireland should be subsidised under this Act. If this Amendment becomes part of the Bill, it is a moral certainty any mortal society may become an approved society. The Amendment would make registration under the Friendly Societies Acts or the Trade Union Act which we considered a safeguard unnecessary. I have been surprised to hear legal gentlemen say registration is of no use at all, and that registration with regard to friendly societies, so far as it gives protection to the members, is just so much wastepaper. As
74
a matter of fact, it is the only protection members of these societies have. It is quite right to bring in societies which have established positions by law or by charter or by usage, and which are neither registered under the Friendly Societies Acts nor the Trade Union Act, but under the Attorney-General's proposed words the Tariff Reform League might within the next few months establish itself in such a way as to become an approved society. I am not a lawyer, but indeed I think I could do much better than that.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) has really expressed an opinion which I should hardly like to express myself. I would far rather postpone the discussion to the Clause dealing with Ireland, but this question is so large that if we are driven to a discussion on this Clause we shall, of course, have to engage in it. I should like to ask you if you can give us any assurance that we reserve our rights on the Clause dealing with Ireland, and that we shall not be prejudiced, but shall be enabled on that Clause to raise the larger questions which have just been raised by the Attorney-General. He has undoubtedly greatly enlarged the facilities for becoming an approved society. But what alarms me is this. If you turn to another Clause you will find that the Commissioners who are to give the approval are to be gentlemen residing solely in London. They are, I presume, to be innocent English gentlemen, and, according to Clause 41, "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted for the purposes of this part of this Act Commissioners (to be called the Insurance Commissioners) with a central office in London and with such branch offices as the Treasury may think fit." It will depend on the view of these gentlemen in London whether a state of things which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent has suggested might have effect. We have no objection whatever to seeing this passed for England, and indeed in some respects for Ireland, but the evil which I foresee—a feeling which is entertained also by the Member for Stoke—is that an illegitimate use might be made of this Act and State money might be diverted into illegitimate and improper channels. It may be that the money would be given to a particular society, one feature of which might prevent many persons from joining, and that

75
would result in the minority in the district having simply to depend on Post Office benefits. But I only rose for the purpose of asking whether, if we deferred the expression of our views until we reached the Amendment relating to Ireland, it would disable us on a later Clause raising questions specially concerning Ireland which we desire to raise, although it might appear we had allowed the opportunity of doing so go by?
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to put that question to me a few minutes ago, and I have been able in consequence to look at Clause 59 applying to Ireland. Clearly it would be in order on that Clause to move an Amendment such as I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman has in his mind applicable to Ireland. Of course, questions concerning the Bill as a whole appertain to the Clause now under consideration, but there are various other special provisions for Ireland, and it would not be out of order to propose an Amendment such as he has referred to. At this stage I should remind the Committee we are not yet discussing the Amendment of the Attorney-General. The Amendment now before the Committee is only whether the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" should or should not stand part of the Clause. It would be much more convenient to defer the other point until it has been decided whether these words are to be inserted.
Sir A. CRIPPS: I should very much object personally to having these words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" withdrawn, and I think friendly societies would take a like attitude. Therefore, I shall oppose the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend if it is pressed to a Division. On the other hand, I think the explanation given by the Attorney-General is an admirable one. It meets the difficulty. If I may so suggest it would not be out of order to add after "registered or established under any Act of Parliament" the words "or constituted in accordance therewith." I think that would serve the purpose and it would make the language of the Clause perfectly clear to everyone. I am strongly in favour of the position taken up by the Attorney-General. I think we must have the protection of the words "registered or established under any Act of Parliament."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want it to be clear that existing friendly societies that are registered will not have to submit their rules and regulations to the Insurance Committee. I want to reserve the alternative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to move, after the words "established under any Act of Parliament," to insert the words "or by Royal Charter."
May I explain that this Amendment is intended to deal particularly with the case of the Royal Provident Society for Free Fishermen, which was not originally a friendly society, and was not incorporated by Act of Parliament. I have put down the Amendment in order that that society may not be excluded.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept that Amendment.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I now beg to move after the words "by Royal Charter" to insert the words "or if not so registered or established, having a constitution which is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners." I do not profess for one moment that these are perfect words, but I do say that they make quite plain what is intended by the suggestion which I made, and I hope it will meet the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree in regard to all these drafting Amendments it is always desirable, when we come to the Report stage, to have power to insert words in order to make the Clause read better, and I shall be quite prepared to bear in mind the suggestions not only of the hon. and learned Member opposite, but also that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that I should try to make it more like an Addisonian essay.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that this would be a convenient point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement which he has promised, and I therefore beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I shall not be strictly in order, except with

77
the consent of the House, in making my statement, as I shall have to run over a good deal of material with regard to Subsection (2) and Sub-section (3). But I do not see how it is possible for me to make the statement without including one or two of the alterations which it is proposed to make in those particular Sub-sections. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know what the position is with reference to approved societies in so far as Clause 18 is concerned. There are matters which are in dispute between various societies, but the criticism is directed against the scheme as a whole, and we have to accommodate the various differences between them. I do not propose to refer to these as far as they relate to subsequent Sections. That would open a very wide field for discussion. I shall, therefore, with the assent of the House, refer to two or three of the main alterations which it is proposed to make in Clause 18 in consequence of the conferences which have been held during the Recess, and also in consequence of the pledges given to the House before the Recess. First, we propose to leave out the words "gives such security as is required to be given under this part of this Act and otherwise." That was promised earlier in the Session in consequence of certain criticisms from the Labour benches. Hon. Members on those benches were rather afraid that large sums of money would have to be deposited with the Insurance Commissioners by way of security, and that their funds would be locked up with the Government before they would be allowed to become approved societies under Clause 18. It was then suggested there might be other methods of giving security. For instance, the friendly societies might choose to pay benefits in advance and then send in the Bill to the Insurance Commissioners. It is clear that in cases like that no security would be required. The other suggestion was that trade unions or other approved societies might estimate for the amount required for benefits in the coming quarter or half year. A society might say, for instance, that it would require a cheque for £2,000 to enable it to pay benefits for the next six months. They would send to the Insurance Commissioners for that amount and that body would ask for some form of security in respect of the sum, which might be in the form of a bond from the officers of the society guaranteeing that the amount sent by the Insurance Commissioners would be distributed in benefits and not be done away with in any
78
other way. We propose to eliminate the words I have quoted, and to make it perfectly clear that these alternatives will be open to any approved society which chooses to administer its fund in that particular way. That disposes of that Amendment. I think the next series of Amendment will be on Sub-section (2)—Sub-section (1) to which the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division referred, with regard to numbers. That has not arisen out of anything I have said, because I indicated very clearly that it was the intention of the Government first of all to leave out Sub-section (1) and to move a new Clause which would permit of the grouping of small societies. There have been two criticisms of Subsection (2), paragraph (i). First there is the criticism from the friendly societies, that the number of 10,000 is too high; their suggestion is that it should be 5,000. [An HON. MEMBER: TWO thousand.] Two thousand was defeated at the Friendly Societies Conference by a vast majority.
Sir A. CRIPPS: Were there any small societies represented at that conference?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only refer to the Friendly Societies Conference. I think very likely they were not adequately represented by any means, otherwise I cannot conceive of their voting for 5,000. Then there was the trade unions suggestion, that the small unions should be affiliated. I am not sure that they would not prefer 10,000 to 5,000—at any rate that is the suggestion which has come to me. I propose at this stage to leave out Sub-section (2), paragraph (i), altogether, and then there will be an Amendment to the effect indicated in August. Since then an Amendment has been drafted and has been circulated among Members of the House, and I think among the small societies—at any rate it has been published in the Press some weeks ago. I have been asked to receive a deputation from the small societies. The difficulty has been really to get the small societies to respond to any invitation upon the subject or to express any opinion upon it. I should very much like to have met some kind of representation of them to discuss the matter, but it has been quite impossible to get them to come together. I agree it is very difficult to bring them together. There are about 6,000 of these societies. There is no federation of small societies, and that is very unfortunate, but I think it will be found, subject to one or two Amendments, that the suggestion which the Government

79
propose to submit to the Committee will be found on the whole to be satisfactory. I shall be able to adduce very strong reasons why small societies should be pressed to federate—at any rate within the county area—and when I submit to the Committee figures showing the financial position of these small societies, the Committee will be convinced that it is in the interests of these small soceties that there should be a more powerful grouping to prevent societies being absolutely broken, either through excessive illness in a district, or, what happens very often, through unemployment. However, I do not propose arguing that at this stage.
The first serious Amendment will be the elimination of Sub-section (2), paragraph (i), and the insertion of a new Sub-section dealing with small societies. Perhaps I ought, before I quit small societies, to make another statement. I think we shall have to alter the Amendment we circulated in one respect. There are some societies which would not care to come within the county group; take the societies which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy)—the denominational societies. There are a good many of them. The hon. Member seemed to imagine they are only found in Ireland, but they are by no means confined to Ireland. Some of the very best societies are denominational societies, and I can well imagine the Church of England, or the Catholic, or the Wesleyan society, and there are a good many of them, preferring rather to group with societies of a similar character in other counties. I think, if they prefer not to come into the county group, but to group themselves with kindred societies in other counties, they ought to be permitted to do so. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment to make it possible for small societies of that character to group themselves with societies of a kindred character without the county area.
I come to the question of collecting societies. It was supposed at first that the Bill as drafted rather gave a monopoly to the affiliated orders—the great friendly society brotherhood—and that by the terms of the Clause the other societies—and there are a good many of them—dividing societies, Holloways societies, deposit societies, collecting societies, industrial insurance societies, and also trade unions—should be excluded. That certainly was not the intention of the framers of the Bill. We have made it clear from
80
Amendments already placed on the Paper before the House rose for the Recess, that all these societies could come in provided they conformed to the conditions of the Bill, so far as relates to administration under the Bill. There is no intention of interfering with the business of these societies outside the adminstration of the sums raised under the Bill. In most of these societies there are huge funds not raised under this Bill, but raised voluntarily for other purposes, some for death benefits, some for division at stated periods, and some for trade union purposes. It is not proposed to interfere in the slightest degree with the business of these societies outside the money raised under the Bill. So long as they comply with the provisions of the measure for the administration of that fund, it is no concern of this Bill or of the Insurance Commissioners how they conduct their business outside it. We have upon the Paper Amendments which make that quite clear. Then the friendly societies raised an objection to this Amendment, and difficulties have arisen owing to the fact that they were very suspicious, owing to the admission into the Bill of these societies at all. Amongst the conditions which the Edinburgh Conference demanded was the insertion in the Bill of a provision which would have excluded these societies altogether. We had an important conference at the Treasury, at which all these societies were represented—the great friendly society orders, the Holloway societies, the collecting societies, the industrial insurance societies, and the trade unions. We had a long discussion, and I am sure the friendly societies, although I can hardly say that they welcome the admission of these other societies into the Bill, are not going to protest any longer.
The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry to have to interfere, but it does seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman is going to argue the merits of subsequent proposals instead of merely giving information, which I understood was the proper object of the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I could not explain what the Amendment even means without just stating that one fact. If I merely read out this legal document without stating to the Committee what it really means, I am afraid it would not convey very much to them.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman could explain when he came

81
to it. I am anxious to save the time of the Committee and not to have the same thing twice over.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do is really for the convenience of the Committee. Of course you may say you have the Rules of the House to consider and not alone its convenience, but we are in a very peculiar position. Owing to the Recess the Government have not had an opportunity of putting down the Amendments, at any rate for many weeks. I do not know whether they are in a position to put all their Amendments on the Paper, or that they can be printed to-morrow. We know there are great changes contemplated, and to ask us to proceed to discuss the Clause without knowing what is the mind of the Government with regard to their Clause would be very inconvenient.
The CHAIRMAN: I am quite agreeable as far as giving information is concerned, but if I allow argument in favour of a particular course, I shall have to allow other people to argue against it. Giving information is perfectly in order.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: By way of information I should like to inform the Committee as to the two points which were raised and which are incorporated in these Amendments. There are two points which are raised by the friendly societies, and I am glad to say that the collecting and other societies are prepared to accept them. One was that if these societies came in they should come in upon the basis, first of all, of making no profit out of this section of their business, and that the whole of the money should be distributed in benefits and in management of this section. That was accepted by all these societies, without exception. That is the first thing, and the Amendments on the Paper will deal with that. Paragraph 2 will deal with that. There will be alterations in that paragraph which will make it absolutely clear that no profit can be made by any of these societies out of the money which is raised under the Bill, which must all go in benefits and cost of management of that fund. I come to the alterations in paragraphs (iii.) and (iv.). We propose to substitute for (iii.) and (iv.) an Amendment to make it quite clear that there must be complete and genuine self-government, but at the same time that there must be elasticity in the methods of self-government. You should not force upon a society any particular method of self-government of management by its members
82
so long as the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the method which is suggested would be a guarantee of genuine and bonâ fide management by its, own members. Therefore, it was proposed that these societies that are now governed by a system of delegates should be governed by the delegate system in the future, subject to alteration at the request of members themselves. For those who are not governed by delegates, such as the Holloway society, they should be governed by some method to ensure complete and effective self-government, and that method should be submitted to the Commissioners, if they apply for admission to the scheme. These are the words we propose to substitute for (iii.) and (iv.). Instead of paragraphs (iii.) and (iv.) there will be these words:—
"Its constitution must provide to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners for its affairs being subject to the absolute control of its members, being insured persons, or, if the rules of the society so provides, of its members whether insured persons or not, including provision for the election and removal of the committee of management or other governing body of the society, in the case of a society whose affairs are managed by delegates elected by members, by such delegates, and in other cases in such manner as will secure absolute control by its members."
That is the alteration which has been agreed upon by the representatives of all these societies. I may just explain that the reason why we include here those who are not members is that, whether trade unions, friendly societies, or deposit or collecting societies, the managing body is very often made up of people who certainly would not come within the definition of insured persons under the Bill because they are not employed persons in the ordinary sense of the term. That is what we propose to do in the way of alterations to Clause 18. I am afraid I cannot go outside Clause 18. There are other points which we have agreed upon, and I should like, if it were possible by the rules of the House, to state what these are, but I have the fear of the Chair before my eyes, and I am afraid I cannot do it. But these are the Amendments under Clause 18. They carry out the agreement arrived at between the various societies who were represented at the conference last week, and I confidently submit that they are of a character which will commend themselves to the Committee as a whole.
Mr. FORSTER: The thanks of the Committee are due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement which he has just made. I think both he and the Committee will realise the difficulty in which they are placed in discussing the Clause without the actual words of the Amendment before us, and without having had an opportunity of thoroughly weighing their effects. I rather regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to take an opportunity before the House met to circulate these Amendments, as he found an opportunity of circulating other proposed Amendments relating to this Clause. He has reminded us that, in accordance with a pledge, or at any rate with an expression of his intention, when the House last considered this Bill last August that he has framed an Amendment dealing with the formation of what he calls a county pool—a county association. He intimated tonight that that has had to take the form of a new Clause. I wonder what opportunities we are going to have of discussing the new Clause which he has given us notice of, because we know that the subsequent stages of this Bill are going to be subjected to some drastic guillotine Resolution. I should imagine that in that Resolution there will be a very compact compartment, in which we shall have to deal with new Clauses. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves to omit the first paragraph of Sub-section (2) I shall put in a plea that we may deal here with the limit of membership of any approved society, because we can naturally have no assurance when we are dealing with a Bill under the guillotine that we shall have any opportunity whatever of discussing in detail any of these new Clauses.
My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) suggests that we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the propriety, or at any rate the convenience, of not going beyond the end of Sub-section (1) to-night. I think the Committee will realise that we should not lose very much by doing that, because I honestly do not think our discussion would be of any value unless we have some opportunity of reflecting upon the Amendments of which the right hon. Gentleman has given us notice. I naturally am very reluctant to give up any opportunity that presents itself of discussing this Bill, because we realise that our opportunities will be limited in future. If I thought the remaining hours of this evening were of real value I should be the last man in the world to suggest that we should
84
give them up. I should like to say one word with reference to the inclusion of the collecting and dividing societies within this Clause; but I am not altogether sure that I should be in order. Perhaps I can express what I wish to say in a single sentence. I have always felt that where you are dealing with a question of insurance on a universal and compulsory basis you should not confine the business of insurance to any one form of society. I quite agree that it is essential that the constitution of all societies should be subjected to certain definite limits, but within those limits equal opportunity ought to be given to all societies.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion that the Government should report Progress before we come to Sub-section (2). That means that we should begin the discussion tomorrow on the number of members of small societies. I think it is desirable that we should get a good discussion at a time when Members will have an opportunity of considering all the Government Amendments. I cannot resist that proposal, therefore, when we have got through Subsection (1) I shall move to report Progress.
Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "gives such security as is required to be given under this part of this Act and otherwise."—[Mr. Worthington-Evans].
Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The object of this Amendment is that any society which has fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Act shall be approved. That is the whole effect of it, and I think it might be accepted. If these conditions are fulfilled no society shall be shut out because of some other reason.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am sorry the Government cannot accept this Amendment. It would introduce a far more drastic change than the hon. Member really has in his mind. It is much more serious. The effect of introducing the word "shall" would remove all elasticity and make it absolutely rigid, and also enable questions to be raised which certainly would not be desired with reference to the action of the Insurance Commissioners, the whole

85
point being, under this, that the Insurance Commissioners shall have a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably and not capriciously. The very point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke which I answered to-day would come in under this particular provision. What is intended is that action by them shall not be merely ministerial, but shall be administrative and quasi-judicial, and therefore that they will have to consider matters which come before them, and which might arise in the exercise of their discretion. I am quite sure if the hon. Member considers it from that point of view he will appreciate the object of the Government in putting in these words, I suggest that he should withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. CASSEL: I agree with what the Attorney-General said. It gives the Insurance Commissioners a very wide discretion indeed, which the Attorney-General says is quasi-judicial. For instance, the question might arise whether a political society might be admitted or not. If that very wide discretion is given, I think we ought to have some assurance from the Attorney-General that he will accept a later Amendment allowing some appeal from the Commissioners, for without it they would certainly have very wide and arbitrary powers. Under the Friendly Societies Acts, there is an appeal from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and this is a much wider discretion than the Registrar of Friendly Societies has. Supposing a particular society comes before them, say a political society, it would be a very difficult matter for the Insurance Commissioners to decide whether that political society should be admitted at all. That would raise big and wide questions, and to leave every question of that character to them without giving any opportunity for appeal at all would be, I venture to think, to give them power which they would not welcome. It would be one which would be dangerous, unless there is opportunity for appeal such as is given at present to a friendly society.
Mr. BOOTH: I have been identifying myself with this Amendment, and particularly with one which deals with approved sections. This Amendment deals with approved societies, and I do not think that you, Mr. Chairman, would be inclined to allow me to refer to the Amendment in the more modified form if the House decided on the main question. The point is rather an important one, and if we got an indication from the Front Bench as to
86
the character and qualifications—I do not want much detail—of the Commissioners, and an assurance that they will be men of a high stamp, I think we might be content. There is a great deal of uneasiness on the part of many in respect of the provision that the door is to be closed as regards appeal from the decisions of the Insurance Commissioners. It might open up a wide field of litigation if you were to grant an appeal, and that might undermine the power of the Insurance Commissioners themselves. You might get a higher stamp of men if you placed the responsibility upon them. But I think we are entitled to raise this question of appeal. I think we are entitled to some expression on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these men will be sufficient in character and qualification and that we can repose our confidence in them.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it would involve interference with the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners, and it would almost transfer the administration from them to the Courts. I cannot imagine anything which would be more disastrous to the efficiency of the scheme than that there should be such opportunity for litigation. Every society that was dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioners would instantly resort to the Courts for a mandamus, saying, "Here we have actually complied with all the conditions." There is no doubt at all as to what the Act is to do. Of course, all good societies will be welcome, and it will be the interest of the Government and the Commissioners that every really strong society should come in; but there will be all sorts of bogus societies, and others which work for other purposes and for selfish ends. They may be able to say, "Have we not complied with all the conditions?" and they would go to the Courts, which would look at the technical side of the matter. They could not in the same degree and in the same way look at the business side of it and exercise the discretion which the Commissioners would exercise. The Courts could interfere if the Commissioners were capricious. I am not so sure that the Swansea case is not a case in point.
Mr. CASSEL: Hear, hear.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member concurs in that. There the Court came to the conclusion that, although the local authority apparently on

87
the face of it acted within their power, still it was a capricious exercise of it. The same thing would apply here if the Court came to the conclusion that the Commissioners had overridden their powers. If you insert the word "shall," it makes all the difference between bringing in the Courts instantly to interfere in the administration, and that would be the very worst thing in the world. The hon. Member mentioned the case of political societies. I do not see how you can exclude political societies. Take the case of Holloway societies. They are very good societies. In Gloucestershire they are run very largely on political lines.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: There is a very large number of Liberals among the Conservatives, and a very large number of Conservatives among the Liberals.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That shows that they are really friendly societies. Nominally they are political organisations. Their very names indicate that. Undoubtedly there are very admirable sectarian and denominational societies. I do not see how you can possibly exclude them if they comply with the conditions in other respects. They are societies formed in order to promote a particular set of ideas, and you cannot exclude them. Therefore, I do not think there is any question at all of excluding societies on account of religion or politics. I am sure the Courts would say it was a capricious exercise of authority if the Insurance Commissioners did that. I implore the Committee not to bind the Insurance Commissioners hand and foot in the way proposed. If you enabled any body of men to go to the Courts straight away and ask for a mandamus it would be the very worst thing that could possibly be done for the proper administration of the Act. I think the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) said that we should secure an able and independent body of Commissioners. If we do that I think the more discretion you give them under the terms of this Clause the better. I again appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted he would find that this Act of Parliament would be administered in the Law Court, and that is the very worst place to administer anything.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know whether the Government have considered subsequent Amendments which
88
propose to give the right of appeal. I do not think the Committee desire that there should be undue interference by the Law Courts or otherwise with the Insurance Commissioners, but you are giving very wide powers to the Commissioners. It is conceivable that they might make a mistake, however good their standing or their intentions. Therefore it seems to me but reasonable that you should reserve some power of appeal in the event of a mistake occurring. If the Government would say that they are going to accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Brentford Division (Mr. Nield), it seems to me that that would meet the case.
Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: After hearing the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think the adoption of this Amendment would mean that it would be a source of money going to lawyers. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words, "Provided that where any society establishes for the purposes of this part of this Act a separate section consisting of insured persons, whether with or without honorary members not being insured persons, and so constituted as to comply with the requirements of this Act relating to approved societies, such separate section may be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and if so approved shall be an approved society, and the provisions of this part of this Act relating to approved societies shall apply only to such separate section of the society."
I have already explained that this Amendment is in order to enable societies that have got business which is not quite on all fours with the business under the Bill, to set up sections for the purposes of the Bill, whether Holloway societies or trade unions. They would be able to conduct their business in their own way without interference, and at the same time to set up a section under the Bill which would be subject to the rules and regulations made under the measure.
Mr. BARNES: I was unfortunately not here this afternoon when the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained this particular addition to the Clause. I may not understand it thoroughly, but at present I am inclined to vote against it, because it would set up a condition of things in

89
which democratic societies—friendly societies and trade unions—will be at a disadvantage as compared with what may be called "capitalist societies." Let me illustrate my meaning. Under this proviso any society, no matter what, could set up a separate section. There are societies that can within their powers, legal or otherwise, do that, but there are some that cannot. A trade union cannot incur the expense of setting up a separate section so far as I know. At all events, they have not got the money to do so. But you cannot compare a trade union or a friendly society, in the ordinary acceptation of these terms, with the Prudential Society or societies of that kind which have been so active in the past few weeks to identify themselves with this Bill. It seems to me that any of these societies can set up a separate section and use their immense reserve funds in doing so. Having set up a section, it seems to me that they would be at a very great advantage as compared with a trade union or a friendly society, in the ordinary sense of the words, because their men are on the doorsteps of working people every week. Therefore they would have an advantage over a trade union that only sees its members once a fortnight, or a friendly society that only sees its members now and then. Before voting for this proviso, I want an assurance that it will not work in the particular manner of enabling capitalist societies to set up sections easier because they have more money than friendly societies or trade unions.
8.0 P.M.
Another point of which I am just reminded. Honorary members of many of these societies are people who are fairly well off, and in many cases they are run by people who are very well off, as a consequence of the large profits they make. If a separate section is set up by the Prudential there is nothing to prevent a director of the Prudential, if he is elected, from really being the controller of this particular section, and we may take it that the necessary steps will be taken to get them elected for that purpose. If that is possible under this proviso it is impossible for me, and I think for my hon. Friends on these benches, to vote for it with the same assurance that it could not possibly be done if the proviso is adopted.
Mr. J. WARD: I have a somewhat similar criticism to make, though it is not quite on the same lines, as that of the hon. Member for Blackfriars. I do not see any
90
reason why trade unions and friendly societies could not set up independent sections for the purpose of conducting this Bill, just as easily as anybody else can, unless you suppose that we are going to admit that we have not got as much energy or ability as they have to do it. I think, on the other hand, that we ought to be able, if it comes to competition, to stand fairly well in the swim, so to speak, with the other organisations. I am not concerned, therefore, about the setting up of these separate sections at all. In fact I think it is an advantage to everybody concerned. When, however, it comes to another proposition which the hon. Member for Blackfriars has dealt with I am entirely at one with him. We should know how these sections are going to be managed if you allow honorary members. I could understand, for instance, the officers of the ordinary societies taking part in the management of the distinct sections provided they were elected to do so by the members of that section.
I quite understand that it would be in fact an interference with the organisation of the trade unions themselves to insist that they must be insured persons. Ever since the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in sending me a cheque each quarter, I cannot be an insured person under this Act. Up to then I could, and I can quite understand, therefore, that the whole of the trade union organisation would be interfered with if it were laid down definitely that no one but an insured person must take any part whatever, whether appointed by members or not, in the management of these sections, because every trade union official who has got more than £160 per year would practically be shut out by the other sections of the Bill from being an insured person. Therefore that is not my contention. But I do say this, after the suggestion made by the Chancellor just now, societies are managed by delegates. Delegates may be appointed to attend meetings, and if a number of honorary members of different branches were sent as delegates we can quite imagine a conference of these different sections being absolutely manipulated by the honorary members. Therefore, while I agree with the Chancellor's suggestion, at the same time I can see as well as the hon. Member for Blackfriars extreme danger in this unlimited authority or power of the honorary member, and I was wondering whether the Chancellor had reconsidered the situation which I am suggesting.

91
Suppose, for instance, men of influence get into a local branch as honorary members, they have only paid a certain sum of money. Sometimes you can join by paying £5 or something less, and then you are a honorary member of that society for the remainder of your life. I can imagine it is most likely that these people would be people of influence in the locality and might attend the branch and might use their influence for the purpose of being elected as delegates, and instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's idea being carried out that only the members should rule and manage these societies, you might have a section and a body of outside persons absolutely controlling the whole affair. You will see, therefore, the danger in these words, "with or without honorary members." I do not share the fear that we cannot form sections to conduct this Act, but I do fear the insidious interference of managers of these sections who do not belong to the working classes or the sections of the people that this Act is established to benefit, but an entirely different section of the community that only manages to get in just under the term "honorary members."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Amendment is criticised on two grounds. The first is with regard to the right to set up separate sections. I should have thought that it was very desirable for a trade union to possess this right. I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Stoke, that a trade union stands just as much in need of this particular addition as any industrial insurance society or any political society or Holloway society, because a great many trade unions who have no benefit at all might like to come in under this Bill. In fact I know that some of them are very anxious, and are thinking of making arrangements to do so. I also agree with my hon. Friend that these great industrial insurance companies have no right to use their reserve fund in the manner which he indicates. It is one of the provisions that they should not use their reserve funds for that purpose and they cannot use any other fund for the purpose of doing anything which is not germane to the business which they are now conducting. Therefore, the only funds they could use would be the funds in the Bill, and those we should certainly take very good care they should not use for the purpose of setting up separate sections and fighting trade unions.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: If they cannot use their reserve or life funds and cannot spend the money which is going to be voted under this Bill, where are they going to get the money from?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are just in the same position as any other society. The expense of forming the society is part of the necessary expenses, but that is not what my hon. Friend is referring to. He is referring to the spending of enormous sums of money for the securing of members. That is a different thing from the necessary essential expense of forming the society. That is not what my hon. Friend complained of, because in the starting of any society you must spend a certain amount of money which no society can avoid spending. In addition to that I have no doubt at all that there would be this inducement for every society and its officials to increase their numbers, that the expense of the officials must necessarily have some regard to the number of people whose affairs they administer. For instance, a trade union official might increase the number of members from 100 to 1,000. The cost of management which the Insurance Commissioners allow is so much per head, and the payment that is made for the local management of 100 members must necessarily be less than if he made those members 1,000. But that, on the other hand, is an inducement which is equal in every society. The collecting society or the Prudential Society has no advantage there over the trade union or other friendly societies, because the payment is so much which will have to be made in proportion to the number of members, the cost of management.
Therefore I know my hon. Friend will see that there is no real danger in that respect, and that there is nothing in the present powers that will enable them to do what is feared. On the other hand the sum allowed for the management will be just the same for every society. I come to the question of honorary members. I do not see how any society can conduct its business unless it allows honorary members to come in. Take the great trade unions of this country. Their leaders are in the main men who will not be insured persons under the Act. My hon. Friend pointed that out, and very properly admitted this. Are they to be ruled out of the management of such an important branch? If they are, I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to the best interests concerned. You want to have men of great experience who have been all

93
their lives running the organisation. Take the friendly societies. I have met a great many of the leaders of the great friendly societies. They are men of very wide experience and singular ability. Unless you allow honorary members all these experienced members would be ruled out in future. You must allow them to come in as honorary members, in order to allow them to retain the present manager.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: They are already members of the society from subscriptions paid by the members.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They may be members of their own societies and managing that branch of the business, but unless you allow the honorary member they could not touch the Government scheme. That is exactly what I wanted to point out to my hon. Friend. If you rule out honorary members it is only insured persons who can take part in the management.
Mr. HODGE: The general secretaries of trade unions do not manage. They have not a vote. They are only secretaries. The executive committee are the people who manage.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let us take the friendly societies. Does my hon. Friend mean to rule out these men who are now managing the affairs of the societies because they will not be insured persons? This is an agreed Amendment between the friendly societies and I understood the trade unions as well. At any rate I am certain as to the friendly societies. Not only that, but they say that unless you allow friendly societies to elect honorary members for the purposes of this scheme not one of us will take any part at all in managing the fund. Take the secretary of the trade union. Is he to have no part at all in the management of the affairs?
Mr. W. THORNEwas understood to say: I certainly take that course if qualified to serve.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Every paid official who has an income of over £160 a year must be an honorary member of the society before he can be a paid official.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point is that you make an honorary member for this purpose in order that he may be allowed to take part in the management of this section of the society. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is not a single
94
one of the leaders of friendly societies who could take any part in the management of this fund unless you allowed them in as honorary members. You ought to allow those high officials, who have all this experience behind them, and who have the confidence of their societies, to come in as honorary members for the management of the fund, and they ought not to be ruled out.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it proposed that honorary members should have a vote in the matter?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That does not arise here; it arises, rather, on the Clause which I read out earlier in the course of the discussion in reference to self-government. As a matter of fact, I shall have a good deal to say in favour of the principle of ruling out so far as voting is concerned. But the question here is whether a society should be allowed to avail itself of the experience of a man who is not an insured member, and whether a society should be able to enjoy the service of a member with over £160 a year. Are men of great experience, who are interested in these societies, and who are not paid for their services at all, to be ruled out altogether? If they were to be ruled out it would lead to a very bad state of things, from my point of view. My hon. Friend below the Gangway referred to the delegate system. Some members of the Conference in regard to the question of election of delegates proposed that a ballot should be taken, and they said that under a ballot neither the officials nor these gentlemen could possibly influence large masses of people. That is why I introduced the Amendment which I read this afternoon in regard to an alternative method of self-government. I hope after the explanation I have given that my hon. Friend will be satisfied to allow this Amendment to go through. It will be quite impossible for the friendly societies and trade unions between them to cope with the 10,000,000 of people who are outside, and who are to be brought in in the course of a few months. It is in the interests of everybody that we should have societies of all kinds, so long as the self-government is genuine, and is bonâ fide in the interests of everybody.
Mr. J. WARD: Am I to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer favours the idea that the honorary member should not have a vote?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I warmly welcome this Amendment in the true interests of the Holloway societies, a large number of which exist in the counties of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. But I rise to ask whether there is any limitation to the meaning of "society" as used in this Amendment. It is clear that in the original Clause the word "society" is sufficiently defined to restrict it to societies carrying on, or intended in future to carry on, insurance business. The whole of this discussion, so far, has had relation to societies like trade unions, and it refers to societies which are now really doing insurance business. But I wish to know whether the Amendment will include bodies like agricultural co-operative societies, and also the large number of distributive co-operative societies which are worked under the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Those societies are very much on the increase; they do no sort of insurance work at the present time, but I am quite sure that both in Ireland and elsewhere, particularly in the case of small-holders' and allotment-holders' societies there will be considerable attractiveness in the Clause as amended, if they will be able to form a section and so effect mutual insurance under the provisions of this Act. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Amendment is framed to include the admission of such societies.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is really a very important matter. A very large number of societies, and I may say also companies, have this subject under consideration, and I think we ought to have some definite understanding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how this matter is to proceed. If I understood his answer aright with regard to insurance companies if they undertake to form approved societies under this Bill they will not be permitted to use any of their funds, and some of them have very large accumulated funds which are termed live funds, for the purpose of forming societies. In the second place, I understand that they will not be allowed to spend any of their capital for this purpose. What I want to know is whether it is the intention or whether they will be permitted to divert any of their premium income received in any one particular year towards the cost of forming those approved societies, because, in my opinion, to allow the premium income to be diverted is practically equal to allowing the other sum to be expended, as in some
96
of the societies the premium income amounts to some millions per year, and goes towards providing reserves for future liabilities. Some societies as my hon. Friend knows do not pay dividends. They cannot afford to do so because of the cost of administration. I want to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I really think if I may say so that it is a matter which requires very grave consideration In fact we are bringing in under this Amendment or under this Clause a very large number of societies, and, in my opinion, the whole work will have hereafter to be undone. I think, if I may say so, with all due deference to my hon. Friend, that those societies and the approved societies to work the distribution of these benefits should have branches in every entity where you have sufficient population, because of this reason that you have an enormous amount of migration from one place to another. If a man belongs to the Oddfellows or the Foresters he can be transferred from one district to a new district to which he is going to live. I think there ought to be similar advantages for a man if he belongs to an approved society, and that if he removes, say, from Gloucestershire to Northumberland, that there should be a society to which he can be transferred. I find, under Clause 25, that the only provision for transfer is where a man is rejected by a society or where a man voluntarily retires. Therefore, I think, that whatever company or whatever society undertakes to form an approved society must become a costly one if it is going to work it in the proper sense or in the sense that the affiliated societies at present form their branches.
My second point is this. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that where a trade union society does not at the present time give benefits that it can become, or in other words, form, a separate section. Is it the intention of the Bill that every approved society must give in some way or another corresponding benefits to those of the friendly society at present. I think that is very essential, because I feel that it is most important that every man should have the opportunity, or if a man is an insured person, that when this Bill becomes an Act, that that man should join some society where he can get additional benefits in addition to what he can get under the Bill. If he joins the Oddfellows or the Foresters he can get double insurance, and therefore

97
I hold that it is most essential that every approved society shall give benefits similar to those of the existing friendly societies, and that that would be a great advantage to the insured person. Is it the intention under the Bill, or will the Commissioners insist, that trade union and other approved societies shall give such benefits, or are they going to become distributors of the benefits without insurance or giving additional benefits to the insured persons. I think those matters should be cleared up. They are now being considered by a large number of societies or companies, and if they have to give benefits in addition to the distribution of those benefits then it becomes a very serious matter to them. If they do not give benefits it becomes a very easy matter for them to form approved societies of members to become insured under this Bill, and to distribute the benefits under this Bill, which will be less costly.
Mr. NIELD: Speaking just now with regard to industrial companies using their funds for any purpose, I should like to know whether the restriction applies equally to trade union societies, and if they will be obliged to rely entirely on the funds they create, and not have recourse to any existing fund of the trade union.
Mr. W. THORNE: I desire to ask two questions. Take the case of my own society, and assuming we start a new society under this particular section, should I be allowed to become one of the managers, assuming I was duly elected? My second point is I understand that none of the societies can use any of their balances for the purpose of promoting any of the sections of this scheme. Will individual Members be allowed to pay contributions, because if they do I can imagine some wealthy person belonging to the "Pru," being honorary members, being able to use balances from their societies. Will that be allowed, because, if so, I can see that the balances from some of the wealthy societies can be used through individual honorary members.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure that I follow the last point. There is nothing, of course, to prevent any individual, whether he is a member of the "Pru," or any other society, as an individual spending his money on anything. I will answer the other point. My hon. Friend wished to know, in connection with
98
his own society, which is a very good test case, where they have no sick benefits at all now, whether he would be allowed, if chosen by his society, to be elected on the committee of management. Not unless this Amendment were carried. One of the objects of the Amendment is to enable those who, like my hon. Friend, have the confidence of their societies, and have managed big concerns for them up to the present, to take part in the management in the future. Otherwise we should have to find somebody who is an insured person, earning not more than £3 a week, and is an employed person, for the committee of management, and my hon. Friend would take no part or lot in the management of the concern. I propose that officials and leaders like himself shall in future, if they are chosen by their society, be allowed to take part in its management. My hon. Friend also asked whether, supposing his society wanted to come in merely for the purpose of administering this part of the Bill, they would be allowed to do so. Not if my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) gets his way.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was simply asking for information.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under the Bill as it stands a trade union which is not giving benefits at the present moment, if it likes to come in to administer the benefits, can do so. I thought my hon. Friend suggested that they must undertake to distribute additional benefits as well.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: No.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not necessary, but I have no doubt that once they have started they will add other benefits, and that members may like to pay additional sums to increase their benefits toy 5s. or 10s. I met the engineers at Bradford, and they told me that 3s. a week invalidity was not good enough for them, and that therefore they insured through their trade union for an additional benefit. That has been one of the results of the insurance law of Germany. It has encouraged members to go in for additional benefits, because the State scheme was not adequate. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) asked with regard to transfers from one district to another. That is a very important point. Every facility ought to be given to enable a man who is a member of a trade union or an affiliated society in one district to transfer his membership to a kindred society in another district if he removes from one district to

99
another. The provision we have made is that the amount should be fixed by the actuaries according to the age of the man to enable him to transfer his membership to another society. Therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend is in the affirmative. The hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) wanted to know whether trade unions could use their accumulated funds. The same question applies to friendly societies and to the great insurance societies. It depends upon their constitution. I should not have thought that it would be possible for them to do so, because their constitutions were framed without having this Bill in contemplation. There is nothing in the Bill which enables them to do it, and that is the only concern I have with it. I cannot prevent societies being formed if they can get shareholders to subscribe money for the purpose and setting up anything that is legitimate. But there is nothing in this Bill which enables them to do so.
Mr. NIELD: I only want equality.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Quite so. They should be put on the same footing as any other society with accumulated funds. If the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) will read the remarkable report of the trade union actuary he will find in regard to his own society that one effect of this Bill will be to add to its accumulated funds something like £200,000. The same thing applies to all those societies which give unemployment or sick benefits. I think it is perfectly right, as the hon. Member for Ealing suggests, that all the societies should be on the same footing and not allowed to use their great accumulated reserves merely for the purpose of fighting each other. At any rate, if it is done they will be all on the same footing in that respect. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) wanted to know whether the terms of the Amendment were so wide as to enable the societies to which he referred to come in. Certainly that was the object, and that is the effect of the Amendment. They will certainly come in.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: That was not my point. It is apparent that the Holloway societies can come in, because they are insuring societies to-day. I asked about non-insuring societies.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I remember. Any society of that character, if it complies with the conditions of the Bill, will be entitled to come in. The object of this
100
Amendment is to put all these societies on a perfect equality provided they comply with the conditions. Dividing societies would not be allowed to divide money raised under this Bill. That must be distributed in benefits according to the Bill. But they can carry on the dividing business outside the Bill; we do not propose to interfere with that at all.
Mr. BARNES: I am not at all satisfied that this Amendment is necessary or right in view of what we have been led to believe was to be the main principle of the administration of the Bill. I can see the difficulties, and, not being a lawyer, I must take the statement from the Front Bench as correct that as the Bill stands our trade union officials would be barred from the work of administration. But there are ways of getting over that difficulty apart from this Amendment. I submit that the Amendment entirely alters the character of the administration of the scheme.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The officials could certainly not be paid out of the funds of the union. We have allowed something like four shillings for management. That includes payment for officials, and I should have thought it was very desirable from the trade union point of view that that money should not go to benefit members.
Mr. BARNES: I quite agree; but surely the Bill could have made provision for the payment of persons other than honorary members. There are ways and means which ought to be known to the legal advisers of the Crown other than the particular solution proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the society of which I am a member is going to gain £200,000 by this Bill, and he quoted the trade union actuary as his authority for the statement. That is a very bold assumption. The actuary said that my society would gain that amount of money over a number of years, during which the liabilities in respect to our present members are to be fulfilled, provided that 80,000 become members of the approved society for the purpose. If this Amendment is carried, care will be taken that we never get those 80,000 members. The Prudential agents will be on the doorstep every Monday morning, as they are in millions of homes throughout the length and breadth of this country, armed as they will be by money provided for them, if not collectively by the Prudential and the Victoria, by individuals connected with these societies. Those agents will

101
have an enormous advantage over trade unions and friendly societies. I say again that it seems to me that if this Amendment is carried, it is going to alter entirely the character of the administration of this scheme. We were told when the Bill was introduced that the scheme was to be managed by the democratic organisations, by the trade unions, and by the friendly societies. We were induced to vote for the scheme having contributions as one of its features because of that statement. Now, having got us to vote for the contributions, we are going to be asked—or it seems to me so—to rule out, at all events if not to rule out practically to shut out, the trade unions and friendly societies, and to bring in these capitalist organisations which will very largely adminster the scheme. If anybody challenges a division, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Motion.
Mr. BOOTH: I want to assure my hon. friends that the people principally interested are not capitalistic organisations, but the National Deposit, the Holloway, and the dividing societies. The capitalistic organisations can take care of themselves, but the societies to which I have referred, the National Deposit, the Holloway, and the great dividing societies are excellent organisations. I did not wish to intervene in this Debate, but I have been specially urged to look after this Clause on behalf of those respective bodies of men. A hon. Member has challenged me with regard to this matter. Well, the bulk of the meetings to which I have gone at Portsmouth, Bristol, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, and so on, were not under insurance auspices, but were got up by these democratic organisations, the dividing societies, the Holloway, and the National Deposit Societies. They provided the chairmen and paid the whole of the expenses, except my own railway fare, which I found myself. They make an appeal not only that they should come in but they make an appeal that their trusted leaders, men who very often have been workmen and who have got into a little way of business, should be allowed to remain officers. They want them to remain as honorary members where they are not benefit members, just as trade unions like to keep hold of members even after they have become Members of Parliament at £400 a year, because they believe that they still have proper sympathies. I think it will be a calamity if we framed any legislation in
102
this House which debarred these gentlemen from taking part in the societies as they desire. Therefore I do appeal to the House, and I say that this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with capitalism. It has to do with thrift, and with thrift organisations, including trade unions.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. The Amendment standing in my name is somewhat similar to that of the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Earl Ronaldshay). I beg to submit that it is entirely in order, for it raises the point as to whether an appeal may be made to the High Court from the Insurance Commissioners. This is a point which has been casually mentioned in this Debate to-night, but certainly has not been decided by the House. There are three alternative courses. The Commissioners "shall" without an appeal register any society that comes before them. Secondly, they "may" in their entire discretion register a society. The third course is that they "may" so register a society in their discretion, subject to an appeal to the High Court. I venture to submit that this Amendment has certainly not been disposed of because it raised a third alternative course, which is not either of the two alternative courses "may" or "shall."
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may move his Amendment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, to add after Sub-section (1),
(2) In the event of the Insurance Commissioners refusing to grant approval to any society or section of any society under the provisions of this Section, such society or section of such society may apply to the High Court of Justice for an order that the Insurance Commissioners shall show reasonable cause for such refusal, and, in the event of such cause not being shown, the approval shall be granted.
I will say what I have got to say very shortly, because I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment. I therefore move it more as a matter of protest. I quite understand the Chancellor's position, but I move this Amendment by way of protest against the constant attempts of the Government to keep the subject from having recourse to a court of law. We are going to establish Insurance Commissioners who are going, under this Bill, to have it entirely in their hands to say whether or not all these different

103
societies—trade unions and friendly societies, dividing societies, collecting societies and others—shall be admitted to the privileges of this Bill and shall become approved societies. I do not want to suggest anything whatever against the Insurance Commissioners. In the first place, we do not in the least know who they are going to be. We are asked to give them a completely blank cheque. Suppose some society comes before them, complying, as it thinks, with the provisions which are going to be laid down in this Clause, and without any reason or cause assigned the Insurance Commissioners simply say, "We do not approve." It may be that this society, a small society or a big one, asks the Insurance Commissioners, "Why do you not approve? Why may we not become an approved society?" They say, "We give you no reason."
These societies will say, "Surely you ought to tell us what is wrong about our rules and constitution, and why we cannot become approved societies." Are the Commissioners to be allowed to say, "We will give you no reason; we simply say we do not approve you, and there is to be no appeal to anybody." Surely that is not a position in which this Committee should place any body of people. The right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to appeal that we all know that two years ago, when we suggested various appeals to the Courts in connection with his celebrated Budget, they were all ruled out by him so far as he could do so. The Swansea case has been mentioned, and we all know that many attempts were made to appeal to the Courts of Law in that case; but there were very great difficulties indeed in the way of proving that the position of the Swansea Corporation was not in accordance with law. The party I have the honour to act with succeeded in getting that case through the Courts of Law. We want the right of appeal in this instance, and I cannot suggest any tribunal better than the High Courts. I do not mind to what tribunals the appeal is so long as there is some appeal for those societies which are not approved in order that they may have their cases re-heard. I put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is to day under the Friendly Societies Acts an exactly similar right to appeal from the Registrar of the High Courts. If a society desires to register, and if the registrar, who is practically in the position that these Insurance Commissioners will be in, says, "I will not approve you as a
104
friendly society," there is an appeal from the registrar. Why should there not be a similar appeal from the Insurance Commissioners as from the registrar? I quite recognise there is difficulty in getting the Chancellor to accept this Amendment, because the desire of the Government has shown in the last few years to act by administrative action and to prevent the citizens of this country, having the right of appeal to the Courts of Law. I move this Amendment as a protest against the repeated decisions of this Government to prevent access by His Majesty's subjects to the Courts of Law.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to move this Amendment, because we had substantially the same Amendment moved and discussed before, when the same arguments were used. The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman has not enabled him to invent one single fresh argument in its favour. It could not be debated at all only that we consented to the withdrawal of the other Amendment. If we had refused to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn and had negatived it, this Amendment could not have been moved again. The Swansea case has been mentioned, but the Swansea case only proves that the Courts can interfere if there is what they regard as an oppressive interference with the rights of the subject, and what was done in that case could be done here. I cannot repeat arguments I have used before in reply to arguments already advanced from the benches opposite. I hope now the hon. Member has made his protest he will see his way to withdraw this Amendment, and the moment he does so I shall move a Motion to report Progress, which I hope will be accepted unanimously.
Mr. FORSTER: I think the case my hon. Friend has made is a substantial one. The Courts can interfere with greater freedom when a body of men refuse to carry out the powers cast upon them. This Amendment contemplates the circumstances of a body like the Insurance Commissioners having full discretion to approve of a society or not, and all it asks is that if they refuse to approve a society that an appeal for their decision should be given. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he refuses to accept it I am afraid there is no more to be said.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Motion agreed to.
Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow, (Wednesday).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Nine o'clock.

  Southern Nigeria (House Rule Ordinance).
  Southern Nigeria (House Rule Ordinance).
  British Fishing Trade, 1910.
  British Fishing Trade, 1910.