Sitting of 31 October 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
AFRICA (No. 1, 1911).
Copy presented of Translation of the Award of Don Joaquin Fernandez Prida, Arbitrator in the matter of the Southern Boundary of the Territory of Walfisch Bay (with Map) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented of Summary of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 30th June, 1911, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Accounts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for the year ending 1st July, 1911 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persian Gendarmerie (Employment of Swedish Officers).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state if the Russian Government have objected to the employment of Swedish officers to organise the Persian gendarmerie; if so, could he say on what grounds; and if he would say whether the proposal of the Persian Government to employ Swedish officers in this capacity is supported or opposed by the British Foreign Office?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Russian Government have not objected to the employment of Swedish officers to organise the Persian gendarmerie, as distinct from a Persian army, and His Majesty's Government have informed the Swedish Government that they have no objection to the engagement of the Swedish officers in this capacity.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. BENTHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to give any information as to the result of the Conference on the Sugar Convention called at the request of Russia at Brussels recently?
  Mr. LOUGHalso asked whether the extraordinary session of the Brussels Sugar Convention had yet ended, and, if so, what decision was arrived at with regard to the appeal of Russia for the removal of the limitation on export; what action the British representatives took; and whether he was now in a position to make his promised statement?
  Sir E. GREY: The Session of the Commission has been adjourned to the 8th of December. An understanding has been come to by which the other Continental States, parties to the Sugar Union, accept the Russian proposal in principle, provided that an arrangement can be arrived at which is satisfactory as regards the future. The British delegates supported the Russian proposal.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend tell us something as to what the exact Russian proposal was? Many of us, I am sure, would be glad to hear that His Majesty's Government sees its way to take some steps towards withdrawing altogether from the existing Convention.
  Sir E. GREY: I expect that in the course of a day or so I shall have in my hands the Report of the British delegate to the Commission, and when I have got that Report I will either make a more detailed statement or else, if it can be done, I will lay the Report before the House.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend, but will he tell us what it was Russia asked should be done and what is this concession to Russia? The whole thing is wrapt in secrecy and we have no means of getting any information.
  Sir E. GREY: I think that is rather hard of my right hon. Friend. The answer I have just given was that I should have an opportunity of reading the Report of the delegate, who has just returned. I wish to have that opportunity not in order that I might withhold information but in order that I might give information.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask if the delegate acted on instructions from the Government, and whether we can see what those instructions were?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir; he was acting on instructions.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can we see them?
  Sir E. GREY: I will deal with that. I will either lay the Report on the Table, which will include the instructions, or else I will make a full statement.

  Italian Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty.
  Mr. MACKINDERasked if the right hon. Baronet will state when the Italian Government was first approached with a view to the re-negotiation of our Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty with Italy in order to free the Australian Commonwealth from the obligations of that Treaty; at whose suggestion the Government of Italy was approached, and with what result; and whether there have been any further communications other than those summarised in his speech at the Imperial Conference of 1911?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government approached the Italian Government in December, 1909, at the request of the Australian Government, with a view to enabling the Commonwealth to withdraw from the Treaty apart from the United Kingdom. These negotiations were not successful, but the Italian Government are at the present time being again approached on the subject, in accordance with the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government at the recent Imperial Conference.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to lay the dispatches mentioned in the first part of the question?
  Sir E. GREY: With the Italian Government?
  Mr. MACKINDER: Yes.
  Sir E. GREY: I will see whether there are dispatches which can be laid, but I cannot promise without looking at them.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the negotiations were not successful?
  Sir E. GREY: They were not successful because no agreement was come to at the time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask why no agreement was come to?
  Sir E. GREY: For the usual reason that the two parties were not agreed.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can he say for what reasons the Italian government did not agree to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman?

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  Colonel YATEasked whether, considering the effect a Trans-Persian railway will have on British and Indian trade in Southern Persia, steps will be taken to fix the break of gauge between the Indian and Russian railways at Isfahan, or to the north or west of that place, and not anywhere to the east or south of it?
  Sir E. GREY: The whole question is still under consideration, and is not sufficiently advanced for decisions to be taken on all points of detail; but, of course, if a scheme for a Trans-Persian railway matures sufficiently, such points as that referred to in the question will be carefully considered.

  Indian Troops in Persia.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Indian troops have been sent to Persia; if so, whether the Persian Government concurred in this action; whether the object for which the troops were sent has been attained; and whether a probable date can be named for their return?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Persian Government have not concurred. The object for which the troops were sent—namely, the safety of British lives and property at Bushire and elsewhere—has not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, yet been attained. The Persian Government have been informed that, as soon as they have succeeded in putting into operation an effective scheme for the restoration of security, the reinforcements of the British Consular escorts will be withdrawn. It is not yet possible to name a probable date

  687
  when the measures in question will have been executed by the Persian Government.
  Mr. KING: Has there been any protest in connection with this action from the Persian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, the Persian Government requested that the increase of the Consular escort should not be made. His Majesty's Government, in view of the reports they have received of actual danger to life and property in one or two of the towns in Persia, were not able to accede to that request.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Russian Government are sending troops?
  Sir E. GREY: The Russian Government are sending an increase of Consular escorts to one or two places amounting, I think, to about 100 men in one case and to between 100 and 200 for others.

  Reciprocity (Canada and United States).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that reciprocity with the United States had been definitely rejected by the people of Canada, and in view of the fact that Mr. Bryce assisted in making the late proposed reciprocity treaty with the United Sates, he had given or would give Mr. Bryce instructions not to again render assistance in the negotiation of a similar treaty?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. The instructions given to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington from time to time in matters concerning Canada will be to give assistance to the Canadian Government. He will be as much at the disposal of the present Canadian Government as of their predecessors, and the action of the Ambassador will never in such matters as are contemplated in the question be contrary to the policy of the Canadian Government of the day.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that Mr. Bryce is to have further unlimited opportunities of assisting President Taft to break up the British Empire?
  Sir E. GREY: Mr. Bryce will have every opportunity of assisting the Canadian Government of the day when they require his assistance, and I am confident that that Government will never ask for his
  688
  assistance for any such purpose as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not a fact that President Taft said his object was to break up the British Empire, and did not Mr. Bryce help him?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware of any such statement by President Taft, but I emphatically contradict any such action as that attributed to Mr. Bryce by the hon. Member.

  Expeditions against the Abors (Murder of Mr. Williamson).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the Secretary of State had sanctioned, in addition to the expedition against the Abors, an expedition against the Mishmis and an expedition against Rima; if so, whether the two latter expeditions had arisen in any way out of the murder of the late Mr. Williamson in the Abor country; and, if not, upon what grounds the two latter expeditions have been sanctioned?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has sanctioned the despatch of a friendly mission to the Mishmis in order to make the position clear to them and thus prevent any tendency on their part to join the Abors. The necessity for this measure arises directly out of the murder of Mr. Williamson by the Abors, but this opportunity will be taken of obtaining information regarding the nature and limits of the country. No expedition is being sent "against Rima," which is in Tibet.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it not a fact that the Abors offered to give up the murderers of Mr. Williamson?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member has a question on that subject upon the Paper, and in reply to that question I will give him more detailed information.
  Sir W. BYLESasked whether the mission of the late Mr. Noel Williamson into the Abor country was undertaken with or without the consent of the Abor people, and upon whose recommendation it was sanctioned by the Government of India; whether the object of the mission was diplomatic, or, if not, why it was undertaken; and whether the Government of India has received information that the gam or headman of a particular village was responsible for the murder of Mr. Williamson, and that the Abors have expressed their readiness to deliver up those

  689
  responsible for the murder if the expedition into their country is not persisted in?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The circumstances in which Mr. Williamson entered the Abor country were unknown to the Government at the time, but from letters written after he had started and received after his death, it appears that his object was to see if he could obtain political information. His expedition was undertaken without reference to higher authority. He had visited the country before, and had been invited by the headmen to return and visit the village in which he was eventually murdered. No information of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member has been received. On the contrary, the evidence is to the effect that not one individual but a group of villages are responsible.
  Sir W. BYLESasked whether the three expeditions now being carried on in the Abor and neighbouring countries by the Government of India are being carried on beyond the external frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions; and, if so, whether, as prescribed by the 55th Section of the Government of India Act of 1858, the consent of both Houses of Parliament has been obtained for defraying the expenses of the military operations out of the revenue of India, or whether there is any necessity for each of these expeditions which warrants their being undertaken without the sanction of Parliament having been first obtained?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. I hope to lay full papers very shortly.

  Poona (Charge against Police).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has any official knowledge of a recent case in a subdivision of Poona in which a sub-inspector of police was charged with torturing two men, and of supporting the alleged charge against them by the fabrication of false evidence; whether he was convicted by the sessions judge and a jury on both counts; whether one of the tortured men died of the torture; whether the judge characterised it as a very cruel assault on helpless men, and the torture as being peculiarly revolting; whether he declared such offences were difficult to detect and should be punished severely; and whether he can state why, under the circumstances, the sub-inspector was not charged with murder?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will place in the Library a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court. My hon. Friend's summary is substantially accurate, but he omits to mention that the sub-inspector was sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment in all. Seven years is on the count of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and one year's rigorous imprisonment besides, on the charge of fabricating false evidence, not against his prisoners, but with regard to the cause of death, in order to-shield himself. He was also convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment (to run concurrently) for framing incorrect records in the hope of saving himself from punishment. The judge does not appear to have used the exact words attributed to him, but I may mention that he commended a magistrate for the promptitude and thoroughness, with which he had conducted the inquiry. The evidence in the case seems not to warrant any conclusion that there was that intention to cause death or knowledge that the hurt inflicted was likely to cause death which is required to constitute culpable homicide, but the attention of the jury was directed by the judge to that point. Departmental action is being taken against the other policemen concerned, and a notification on the case will be circulated as a warning.

  Plague (India).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he could give any inforation concerning the progress of the plague in India, including the number of fatal cases during the past three months?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The mortality from plague during the last three months in British India and Native States has been as follows: In July, 8,987 deaths; August, 14,191; September, 28,618. There is very little plague in Northern India, only thirteen deaths from it being recorded in the Punjab during September; but a severe epidemic has broken out in the-Bombay Presidency, where 20,470 of the total number of deaths in September occurred. Madras and Mysore are also affected, though in a slighter degree.

  Rainfall (India).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked what are the latest reports from India concerning the rainfall; and whether there is now any apprehension of famine in any part of the country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Owing to exceptionally good and well distributed rainfall during September in most parts of India the autumn crops have been better than was anticipated and the sowings for the spring crops have been commenced under favourable conditions. In parts of the Bombay Presidency, especially in Guzerat, the rainfall throughout has unfortunately been insufficient, and some distress exists and will require relief in the latter districts. Adequate preparations for meeting it have been made by the Government of Bombay. The hon. Member will have noticed that weekly official reports of the rainfall are being distributed to the Press as they are received from the Governor-General.

  Director-General of Archæology (India).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if it is the intention of the Indian Government to abolish the post of Inspector-General of Archæology in India; and, if so, will he state on what grounds it is proposed to do so?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the Government of India still proposes to abolish the office of Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, and to take other steps to diminish the activities of the survey?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Director-General of Archaeology is one of several inspecting officers attached to the central government whose services the Government of India are disposed to think might be dispensed with. The grounds are the promotion of the policy of decentralising the administration, and of effecting economies. The whole question is at present under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will impress upon the Government of India the fact that the work carried out by Mr. Marshall meets with universal approval and has been carried out at a very small cost?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India made these recommendations to the Secretary of State, and it is for him to decide whether he will sanction or refuse to sanction the proposals. The considerations the Noble Lord mentions will, of course, with others, have attention.
  Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask whether the idea of this abolition proceeded originally
  692
  from London or from the Vice-regal Council?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India suggested the abolition of several inspectorships, including the Director-General of Archaeology.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Might I ask for an answer to the latter part of my question: whether this involves any diminution in the activities of the survey?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It would involve a curtailment of expenditure on archæology in India.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Supposing sanction is given by the Home Government, who will perform the duties of the post which is to be abolished?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is a hypothetical question. If the post is abolished and nothing is substituted for it, the duties will not be performed.

  Taxation of Jute (India).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked whether any, and, if so, what, proposals have been made to, or sanctioned by, the Government of India for the taxation of exports of raw jute or jute manufactures; whether it is intended that any rebate shall be allowed on raw jute shipped to Dundee or other British ports; and whether any papers on the subject will be presented to the House?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Calcutta Improvement Act, which was enacted in August last by the Bengal Legislative Council, imposes a duty on all jute exported by sea from the port of Calcutta to any other port, whether beyond or within India, at a rate not exceeding (1) in the case of raw jute two annas (or two pence) per bale of 400 1b.; (2) in the case of manufactured jute twelve annas (or one shilling) per ton of 2,240 1b. It is proposed to levy a similar tax on raw and manufactured jute exported from Chittagong. As the duty will be paid equally on jute manufactures and on raw jute, no rebate will be made on raw jute shipped to British ports. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to lay papers on the subject. The tax is part of a large scheme for effecting much required improvements in the City of Calcutta.

  Midnapore Conspiracy.
  Mr. MORRELLasked (1) what was the total amount of costs incurred by the Government of Bengal in undertaking

  693
  the defence of Mr. Weston and two I police officers in the civil action brought against them after the acquittal of the prisoners in the Midnapore case; whether the Government are again undertaking the legal costs of the defendants in the appeal which is now proceeding; and whether there is any precedent for this further expenditure of public money; and (2) whether an application has been made by the successful plaintiff in the civil action following on the Midnapore case, that the defendants should give security for the costs already awarded by the Court, and the costs to be further incurred in consequence of the appeal or, in the alternative, that the Government should give an undertaking to be responsible for such costs in the event of the appeal being dismissed; and what is the attitude of the Government in the matter?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked what decision the Indian Government has come to regarding the Midnapore Damage suit; whether it proposes to pay the expense of a further appeal; how much the case has cost the Government up to date; and whether it proposes to pay any of the expenses of the prosecution as well as of the defence?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government is undertaking the costs of the defendants in the appeal against the judgment in the Midnapore civil suit. As regards the principle involved in this decision, I would refer to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford on the 10th August. The costs in the original suit were estimated to come to about Rs. 75,000; and I understand that the total costs may amount to about twice that sum. The plaintiff has applied that the defendants shall give security for costs, and this application will be heard by the High Court on the 27th November. The Bengal Government are prepared, if required, to furnish the security or to guarantee it.
  Mr. MORRELL: I would like to ask if there is any precedent for financing an appeal after a police officer has already been defeated?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the principle generally accepted is that the Government should do everything in its power to help officers to clear their characters when their characters are impugned in the discharge of their official duties. The
  694
  judgment of the Lower Court not being final, the course proposed is strictly in accordance with precedent.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that if this appeal is lost, the Government will carry the matter a step further?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would rather the hon. Member waited until the appeal was heard.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the two policemen involved in the Midnapore case who received honours whilst the case was sub judice, and who have now been condemned by the courts, are to be allowed to retain their honours?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The case is still sub judice, and the condemnation is therefore not final.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is it sub judice on account of the appeal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

  Industrial Disputes (Use of Military).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of occasions on which the military forces of the Crown were used in industrial disputes between the years 1900–1906 and 1906–1911, inclusive, and the total estimated cost of the use of the military for such purposes in each period?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In the first period troops were only employed on one occasion, and in the second period troops were employed on three occasions previous to the recent railway and transport strike. As regards the additional expenditure involved by the use of the troops, complete figures are not available.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: How many since the occasion the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, on no subsequent occasion. That is the last occasion.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether any troops were employed in running trains in Ireland during the recent railway strike; if so, whether their wages were paid by the railway company or by this House; and whether the profits derived from the running of the trains accrued to the railway company or to the Exchequer?
  Colonel SEELY: A number of Royal Engineers were employed on the railways

  695
  in Ireland in order to ensure, firstly, the passage of troop trains; and, secondly, the transport of His Majesty's mail service. They, however, only acted as drivers and firemen on three mail trains. They received their military pay, but no wages from the company. I am not aware whether profits were derived from running these trains.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the railway companies benefited by the running of the trains at the same time that the labour was provided for nothing?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know whether they benefited by the running of the trains. I can inquire, but I should think it most unlikely that they did.
  Mr. WATT: Has a claim been made on the railway companies for a donation towards these expenses?
  Colonel SEELY: This was done purely for the service of the War Office and for the service of the mails and for no other purpose, and to what they were restricted.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: If the War Office paid the railway company for carrying these troops, surely the railway company must have made something out of carrying the troops?
  Colonel SEELY: No, I do not think that follows at all. From the information I have, I should think there was a loss. I do not know, but I can inquire.

  Territorial Force (Mobilisation).
  Viscount LEWISHAMasked if the statement of the late Financial Secretary at Tiverton that we are now provided in every way, so that within forty-eight hours of an alarm being given the Territorial Force could stand forth absolutely equipped with everything it might need to face any invasion or emergency that might arise, gives an accurate description of the present position of the Territorial Force; if this absolute equipment includes all that would have to be provided on mobilisation by the Army Council and by the county associations, respectively; and if, in addition to the war equipment, vehicles and harness, clothing and necessaries, regimental supplies, medical and veterinary stores to be provided by county associations, this absolute equipment also includes horses?
  Colonel SEELY: The speech to which the Noble Lord alludes deal merely with the financial provision which had been made for mobilisation requirements. The period required for the mobilisation of any of the forces of the Crown as apart from the money provision, which was naturally the aspect of the case with which my hon. Friend was dealing, is confidential, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the Noble Lord any detailed information on the subject.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it usual for Ministers to give confidential information at public meetings?
  Colonel SEELY: There was nothing confidential in what my right hon. Friend said. He said adequate funds were provided for this purpose, and so they were. What would have been confidential would have been to state the actual period during which mobilisation could be completed.

  King's Regulations.
  Mr. GOLDSMITHasked whether King's Regulations and other books which officers of the Territorial Army are required to read for Examination B, are out of print; and further, whether such officers will be examined upon the subjects contained in the books they are unable to obtain?
  Colonel SEELY: The stock of King's Regulations is ample for all requirements. The Field Service Pocket Book, which is the only book out of print, will shortly go to press. The Cavalry training and Field Artillery training are now being revised, but the stock in hand of the present edition will, it is hoped, be sufficient to meet requirements until the new editions are issued. The stocks of all the other books are ample. I should be obliged if the hon. Member could inform me of the circumstances under which he was unable to obtain any of these books.

  Army Retirement Regulations,
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked why the Army Council have refused to allow the retirement of Captain and Quartermaster A. M. Haywood, 6th Dragoon Guards, in view of the fact that this officer has completed more than ten years' commissioned service, but less than twenty years' service as laid down in Article 490, Royal Warrant, and is therefore entitled tinder Article 529b, Royal Warrant, to a pension of £200 per annum, less £10 per annum for each complete year short of twenty years' service; and whether, under the circumstances,

  697
  this case may be reconsidered and the retirement on reduced pension be now allowed.
  Colonel SEELY: Under Article 525 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., a Quartermaster is not entitled to retire voluntarily until he has completed twenty years' service as laid down in Article 490. The reduced rate allowed by Article 529 (b) is applicable only to a Quartermaster compulsorily retired under Article 527 through not being recommended for continuance in the Service. This officer was informed to this effect in August last.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of amending the Royal Warrant so as to remove any doubt on the point, seeing that this constitutes a serious hardship to these officers
  Colonel SEELY: If there be any doubt I shall be glad to have it removed. But as I read the regulation I do not think there can be any doubt on the matter. Only on compulsory retirement is a gratuity payable.

  War Department (Minimum Wage for Adult Workmen).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a general statement with regard to the raising of the minimum wage for adult workmen employed under the War Department?
  Colonel SEELY: The minimum rates of wage for adult unskilled labour at home stations have been carefully reviewed. Increases of from 6d. to 2s. per week have been given at various stations with effect from 1st April last. Further additions up to 1s. per week have been granted in cases where the work performed, though of a generally unskilled character, involves some small degree of skill or responsibility.
  Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman a list of the stations referred to, and are the amounts in question in accordance with the recommendations of the advisory committee of last year. I will, if the right hon. Gentleman prefers, put the question down.
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Member will put it down to the Financial Secretary, who deals with all these matters, he will get the fullest information. I have not a list of the stations here.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Are the wages now paid equal to those paid outside for similar labour?
  Colonel SEELY: That is what we aim at. If a suggestion is made that it is not so, we inquire into it immediately.

  Land Valuation (Cost of Staff).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cost to the State for the year ending 31st March, 1911, of £174,342 for services of land valuation officers, includes salaries of typists or other minor officials, cost of stationery, postage, and rent or purchase of offices; and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, whether he can give an approximate estimtae of the cost to the State of these items for the year ending 31st March?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The sum of £174,342 covers all expenses such as those referred to in the question, except postage paid by land valuation officers, which, however, amounts to an insignificant sum.
  Mr. NEWMAN: What was the cost of sending out the two million Forms IV., and when were they sent out?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They were posted on 10th February.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    POST OFFICE DEPOSITORS.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), for how many years a Post Office depositor will have to contribute before drawing one week's disablement benefit if he has never drawn any sick benefit or maternity benefit before the commencement of the particular illness which has culminated in disablement, or if he has drawn sick benefit for two weeks a year on the average, and has drawn maternity benefit on two occasions; and (2), what is the maximum number of months for which a Post Office contributor can draw disablement benefit before he reaches the age of seventy, assuming that he joins at the age of fourteen and draws on an average two weeks' sick benefit a year and maternity benefit on three occasions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is impossible to give a definite answer to these inquiries because the exact period would depend upon the result of the valuation

    699
    of the Post Office fund and the amount charged by the local health committees for management and medical benefit.
    Mr. AMERY: If the sums drawn in regard to any particular benefit are not used are they returned to the individual account?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like to have notice of that question.

    HONORARY MEMBERSHIP OF APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. JOWETTasked if a society, in applying to become an approved society under the proposed National Insurance scheme, will be permitted to include honorary members in the number required to meet the conditions necessary to qualify a society for approval?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under Clause 18, as amended last Thursday, no limit of numbers is prescribed as a condition of approval of societies.

    RESERVE VALUES.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked whether the concessions already made by him and those to be embodied in Amendments he has promised will prolong the period of fifteen-and-a-half years stated in the Government actuaries' Report to be the period required to accumulate the reserve values with compound interest?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply is in the affirmative, but I am not at present in a position to give an exact estimate of the extent of the prolongation.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Are we to understand that the grant of additional benefits under Clause 8 will be deferred until the liability resulting from these additional concessions have been wiped off?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly it will affect the period at which the additional benefits will be paid.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (SALARIES).
    Mr. AMERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what scale salaries are to be paid to the Insurance Commissioners and other salaried officials under the scheme; and at what figure he estimates the total cost of salaries as apart from other costs of administration?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to questions on this subject yesterday.

    ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDasked whether, before the Insurance Bill becomes law, the Government will give facilities for discussing any alternative proposals for providing the whole or any substantial part of the sums proposed to be compulsorily contributed by the employers and the employed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The principles governing the contributions payable under the Insurance Bill have already been decided by the Committee in the Financial Resolution and Clauses 3–7 of the Bill, and the rates can be discussed on the Second Schedule.

    Development Commissioners (Fishery Grants-in-Aid).
    Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board have yet received any reply from the Development Commissioners with respect to the Board's application for a Grant-in-Aid for fishery purposes; and, if so, what, is the nature of that reply, and in particular what comment, if any, the Development Commissioners made with respect to that portion of the Board's scheme applying for financial assistance for the policing of the inshore waters?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board are still in communication with the Development Commissioners on the subject.

    Pedigree British Live Stock Trade.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to issue the long-promised Report of the Departmental Committee appointed more than a year ago to consider the best means of promoting trade in pedigree British live stock with other countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report has been received, and will be published without delay.

    Anthrax.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture have, as requested in a letter from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, dated 16th July, 1910, taken any and, if any, what steps to collect information with regard to anthrax from British Dependencies and from foreign countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has not been thought necessary to supplement the information

    701
    which the Board already receive as to the existence of Anthrax abroad.

    Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties covered by the resolution proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and adopted by the Imperial Conference of 1911 and affecting any of the King's Dominions outside the United Kingdom.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. F. D. Acland): The Treaties are those with Argentina (1825), Austria-Hungary (1876), Bolivia (1840), Colombia (1866), Denmark (1660 and 1670), France (1826), Italy (1883), Mexico (1888), Morocco (1856), Norway (1826), Russia (1859), Sweden (1654, 1656, 1661, 1766, and 1826), Switzerland (1855), and Venezuela (1825). The Bolivian Treaty of 1840, which is binding on the Dominions, is being replaced by a fresh Treaty, which is at present awaiting ratification. It is possible that one or two other Treaties of minor importance are also covered by the resolution, and these cases are being considered.

    Italian Treaty in Australian States.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked whether the States of the Australian Commonwealth, with the exception of South Australia, at their own desire, acceded to the Treaty with Italy of 1883, which His Majesty's Government is now seeking to abrogate on the ground that it contravenes the usual practice in negotiating such treaties; and in what respects it fails to comply with the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his speech at the Imperial Conference of 1911.
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, although the Italian Treaty of 1883 provides for the separate adhesion of the self-governing Dominions, it does not, as is the case in more recent commercial treaties, permit their separate withdrawal apart from the United Kingdom. It is in this respect that it fails to comply with the conditions laid down at the Imperial Conference. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that His Majesty's Government are now seeking to abrogate the Treaty; they are
    702
    merely desirous of amending it in such a way as to give the Dominions that power of separate withdrawal which they enjoy in all recent commercial treaties.

    Post Office Savings Bank (Price of Consols).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General who is responsible for the statement in his circular recently issued to Post Office Savings Bank depositors to the effect that the State is not responsible if there is a fall in the price of Consols; and whether he personally accepts responsibility for it?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I accept full responsibility for the circular on Small Investments in Government Stock through the Post Office Savings Bank and for the statements it contains, including that quoted by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In that case can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea who is responsible for the fluctuations in the price of Consols?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a matter of argument hardly proper to question and answer.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of introducing legislation to prohibit gambling transactions in Consols, as was the case with Bank of England stock?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I observe the hon. Member's objection to all forms of gambling, but I am not sure that legislation is possible.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his testimonial. I wish to ask whether he can state the approximate number of dormant accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank and the approximate total of unclaimed balances upon such accounts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These figures, are given on page 12 of my report to the Treasury for 1910–11, in respect of accounts under £1 for the 31st of December last. They are 3,460,387, and £372,091 respectively. No figures are available for larger accounts.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of advertising the names of these people to whom the money is due? Is this not a case of obtaining money by fraud?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The money is there awaiting payment. As the average value of these accounts is only 2s. 2d. each, I am not sure it is worth while advertising the names of 3,460,000 persons.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my offer to advertise them free of charge in the most widely circulated publication?

    Parcels Damaged in Transmission.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of the parcels sent through the parcel post arrive in a broken and disordered condition; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter and take such steps as are necessary to ensure that more care be taken in the future?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that a certain number of parcels are damaged during transmission by post, but in most cases the damage is due to inadequate packing and not to careless handling. Despite the advice given to the public by the Post Office Guide as to the need for proper protection, many parcels, obviously of a fragile nature, are so insecurely packed that they cannot reasonably be expected to travel without injury. The staff are enjoined to exercise every care in dealing with parcels during their transmission.

    Temporary Clerks (Post Office)
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a memorial concerning the establishment of temporary clerks on an equal footing with employés of the National Telephone Company; and, if so, is he now able to state the decision he has reached thereon?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received memorials on this subject. I hope to allow the temporary clerks referred to the opportunity of competing for established posts; but I am unable to extend to them the special arrangements made in the case of the staff to be transferred from the National Telephone Company.

    Post Office, Banagher.
    Mr. REDDYasked why, in view of the want of suitable and sanitary post office premises at Banagher, King's County, his Department has failed to acquire the suitable central and sanitary premises which were negotiated for, and under what circumstances such negotiations were broken
    704
    off; and whether he will renew these negotiations, bearing in mind that no other premises will be offered?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I fear that I cannot at present add anything to the letter which I sent to the hon. Member on the 26th May last. I explained to him that the premises he has in mind were not regarded as altogether suitable.

    Small Investments in Government Stock.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to furnish a Return showing approximately what is the extent to which the Post Office scheme of small investments in Government stock through the Post Office is taken advantage of by the public?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Such a Return is published every year in Appendix J to the Annual Report on my Department. The latest figures available will be found on Page 72 of my last Annual Report. They show that the estimated number of stockholders on 31st December, 1910, was 150,600, and the stock to their credit was £23,151,868.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Postaster-General whether, with a view to popularising the Post Office scheme of small investment in Government securities, he will consider the advisability of graduating the commission or brokerage charges on investments of less than £25 in value; and whether, with the same object in view, he will extend the facilities for such investment to persons other than those who are Post Office Savings Bank depositors?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The commission on the purchase or sale of Government stock up to £25 is only 9d. This fee is already unremunerative; and there is no justification for the adoption of any lower minimum rate. One of the chief advantages of the present system to the small investor is that the dividends on his stock are automatically placed to his credit in his savings bank account, while in the absence of such an account the transmission of minute sums as interest would be expensive and inconvenient. I do not think it would be advisable to abolish the present condition that purchasers of stock through the Post Office Savings Bank must be depositors in the bank. The opening of an account is simple and costs nothing.

    Irregular Postal Designation, "N.B."
    Mr. MUNROasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many persons in addressing correspondence to Scotland add the letters "N.B."; whether this is the official designation of the country; and whether the use of these letters is desired by the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The use of the letters "N.B." as the postal designation of Scotland has no official sanction; and as no one now speaks of Scotland as "North Britain," and as letters addressed with those initials are liable to be sent to Now Brunswick, the Post Office would prefer that they should not be used. A notice to this effect has indeed appeared in the Post Office Guide, and I propose to reinsert it.

    New Postage Stamps.
    Mr. KINGasked (1) when the new postage stamps of a higher value than 1d. will be issued; and (2) whether the Postmaster-General is now satisfied that every possible improvement has been attained in the printing, adhesiveness, and other qualities of the new 1d. and ½d. stamps.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The preparation and issue of stamps at present devolves, by Statute, upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and perhaps the hon. Member will address his questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Strike (Bristol Coalfields).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the strike of coal miners in the Bristol coalfields; whether he is aware that this strike affects some 3,000 workers, and, as a consequence, many more thousands of persons; whether the recent Board of Trade inquiry which resulted in a report that the coalowners could not afford to pay increased wages is the only and final effort of the Board to deal with the present position of affairs; and whether he will approach the royalty owners, whose demands for the full payment of their royalties in the embarrassed state of these coalfields is alleged to be the solo cause of the strike?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): In accordance with an agreement arrived at between the parties, an inquiry into this dispute was recently made by an investigator
    706
    appointed by the Board of Trade. He reported that the present financial condition of the colliery companies' does not permit of the colliery owners conceding the advance in wages asked for by the men. I do not think that it is practicable for me to approach the royalty owners in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, but his suggestion shall be carefully considered.

    Workmen's Trains.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that the Metropolitan District Railway Company intend to run the last workmen's cheap train earlier than hitherto; and if he intends taking any action in the matter; and (2) if he is aware that the overcrowding of the trains of the Metropolitan District Railway is more serious than it was a year ago, and that in consequence of the growing population of the East End of London this condition is likely to be intensified; and, if he has no power to deal with the matter, will he seek legislative powers?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have asked for the observations of the railway company on these questions, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

    Land Registry (Staff).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Attorney-General whether he can state how many of the clerical staff of the Land Registry Office are members of the Bar or qualified solicitors; whether he is aware that, for a long time past there has been discontent and disappointment amongst the clerical staff of that office in relation to their pay and prospects; and whether he will consider the desirability of the appointment of a Departmental Committee to enquire into and report upon the organisation of the Land Registry Office and the pay and prospects of the clerical staff?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): Twenty-one of the clerical, staff of the Land Registry are members of the Bar, or qualified solicitors. Such feeling as may exist of the nature referred to is probably due to the unavoidable postponement—pending the Report of the recent Royal Commission appointed in 1908—of any question of reorganisation of staff. The Report of the Commission is now receiving the attention of the Government in conjunction with a scheme for the reorganisation of staff; the present moment would

    707
    therefore not be an opportune one for the appointment of the Departmental Committee suggested.

    Registered Debentures.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Attorney-General whether he is yet able to report the result of the reconsideration by the rule committee of the Supreme Court of the requirement that every holder of part of an issue of registered debentures must produce his debentures in chambers in an action to enforce security; can he say whether, having regard to the provisions of the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, Section 100, the rule committee will direct that the register of debentures, required by the Act to be kept, is to be accepted as primâ facie evidence of the persons entitled to participate in the benefits of the judgment; or in what other manner, if any, can they see their way to obviate the expense and inconvenience caused to the investing public by the continued application of a rule established in different circumstances?
    Sir J. SIMON: The evidence of the register cannot be accepted as sufficient for the purpose of a distribution of funds by the court. It is found in practice that the register is often in an imperfect condition, and even in cases of considerable capital and importance the register is not always correct. Debentures are frequently deposited with bankers or other persons to secure advances without transfer or entry on the register. Debentures are frequently sent to the court by registered post and are returned in due course. This practice might be followed more often.

    Fisheries Grant (Ireland).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether the Department has received a grant of £50,000 for aiding Irish fisheries; if so, whether he can state how it will be allocated; and whether, in allocating it, regard will be had to the representations made to the Department with reference to Kilkeel harbour, county Down, by the Parliamentary representative of the constituency?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Development Commissioners have notified the Department that they are prepared to recommend a grant of £50,000 in aid of Irish fisheries. The
    708
    allocation of the sum in question is at present the subject of discussion between the Commissioners and the Department. The case of Kilkeel ranks amongst the proposals of the Department, and is not being overlooked.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May we have an assurance that in considering the allocation other harbours in county Down, besides Kilkeel, will not be overlooked?
    Mr. RUSSELL: That depends entirely on the funds at our disposal.

    Cost of Living (Germany and Great Britain).
    Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he will lay upon the Table of the House a translation of the debate in the German Reichstag on the causes of the increase in the cost of living in Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen with interest the full reports in the British Press of the debate in the Reichstag with regard to the increased cost of living in Germany, but I doubt if the advantage to be derived from making a complete translation would be worth the cost involved.
    Mr. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the reports which have appeared in the Press are so widely divergent according to the political views of the newspapers, that it is impossible really to know what the truth is as to the conclusions to which the German Government have come?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think everybody must form his own conclusions. They are accessible to all.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing the causes of the increased cost of living and the means by which it can be met?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind the hon. Member that, as I stated yesterday, the Board of Trade are conducting an inquiry into this matter, and, until this is concluded, I think no useful purpose would be served by a discussion in this House.

    Judgment Summonses.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to remarks made by Sir Thomas Snagge at the Kettering county court during the present week, when His Honour, in dealing with 118 judgment summonses, characterised the same as a

    709
    monstrous system of our law, and said that the Treasury were running county courts like a shop, so that the more customers that went to the shop the more fees went to the Treasury, and that the work was repulsive and oppressing to county court judges; and whether the Government contemplate introducing any remedial legislation in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen a newspaper report of the remarks attributed to Judge Snagge. I cannot gather from them in what respect an alteration in existing county court procedure is suggested. Any representations addressed to the Lord Chancellor by a county court judge as to inequalities or hardships under the existing procedure in county courts would, of course, receive most careful consideration.

    Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Although it is quite impossible to add to the Government Bills at this stage of the Session, the Lord Chancellor has the matter under consideration.

    Second Parliamentary Chamber.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the House of Lords is now unable to prevent any Bill from being passed into law, he can now say when the Government proposes to bring in a Bill for creating a new Second Chamber with the power to refer important Bills to the judgment of the people?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not able to name the date on which any proposals of the Government on this subject will be submitted to Parliament.
    Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that the formation of a reformed Second Chamber was urgent, he can say whether the reformed Second Chamber will be brought into existence next Session, or before the Home Rule Bill receives the Royal Assent?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have just said that I am not able to name a date.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the whole thing is off?

    Home Rule Bill.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether, under the Home Rule Bill to be brought in next Session, two Houses will be given to Ireland, as foreshadowed by the Chief Secretary; whether this means that when the all-round scheme is adopted there will be ten Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom; and whether he will give any promise that Scotland will be next dealt with?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot anticipate by any statement now the provisions which may be embodied in future proposals of legislation.

    Shops Bill.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House when he proposes to proceed with the consideration of the Shops Bill; or, if not, whether, for the convenience of Members, he will undertake to give at least a week's public notice before asking the House to take the Report stage of that measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to say when the Shops Bill will be taken, but ample notice will be given.

    Case of Miss Jessie Brown (Glasgow).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the circumstances of the arrest of Miss Jessie Brown, of Glasgow; and whether, as it has since her arrest been established that her arrest was unjustifiable, he will direct that the Treasury investigate the case with the view of ascertaining what reparation can be made to her?
    Mr. WATTasked whether the Scottish Office has finally refused to grant any compensation to Miss Jessie Brown, wrongfully convicted in a Glasgow police court and declared innocent by the Court of Session in Edinburgh?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am asked to answer with this question the question standing in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I am aware of the facts of this case. The conviction obtained against Miss Jessie Brown in the Glasgow police court in December, 1907, was quashed on appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, the ground of the decision being that the magistrate who tried the case did not inform Miss Brown of her right to an adjournment of the proceedings to enable her to prepare

    711
    her defence. The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, which were not before them. Miss Brown was awarded the expenses of the legal proceedings before the High Court. The case has since this decision been again carefully and fully investigated by the Glasgow magistrates, who are satisfied that it is not one for compensation; I may add that Miss Brown had an opportunity of pursuing a civil action for damages but failed to do so timeously. In all the circumstances I cannot advise that the Treasury should pay compensation.

    British Museum (Gas Explosion).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether a dangerous explosion occurred at the British Museum on Thursday last; whether it was caused by the use of a lighted torch to search for an escape of gas; who is to blame for so careless an act by which priceless national treasures were imperilled; and what steps, if any, have been taken to prevent its recurrence.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A slight explosion took place on the 25th instant under the roadway to the north of the British Museum owing the the defective plugging of a gas main which was being laid by the contractor for the extension of the Museum. One of the contractor's employés noticed the leak, thought it was due to an escape from a email pipe, and applied a match. Nothing was set on fire by the explosion (the seriousness of which has been much exaggerated) and the collections were in no way endangered. Gas is only used to a small extent in the British Museum, and the present mishap, which was due to the thoughtlessness of a mechanic, arose out of temporary conditions which are not likely to recur.

    Mr. O'Mahoney's Estate (Beaufort, County Kerry).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any and, if so, what steps to acquire compulsorily the estate of Mr. Myles O'Mahoney, Beaufort, County Kerry?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board decided, at their meeting in August last, not to apply compulsory powers at present for the purchase of this estate as the money available for such cases has already been appropriated for this year.

    Thompson Estate, County Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked what progress has been made with the acquirement by the Estates Commissioners of the untenanted lands of Clonfin, on the Thompson estate, in North Longford; and when the Commissioners propose, having acquired the lands, to prepare a scheme for sub-division in accordance with Section 6 of the Act of 1903?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the papers in reference to this estate have been referred to an inspector, and if the Commissioners acquire the lands the allotment of them will be dealt with as soon as possible.

    Untenanted Land, Killasonnagh.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the name of Pat Donohoe, Killasonnagh, has been recorded as a person suitable for an allotment on the untenanted lands of Killasonnagh in accordance with the promise made to him by Mr. Lough, one of the inspectors of the Commissioners; whether he is aware that this poor man is living on six acres of bog for which until recently an annual rent of £12 was demanded; and whether relief can be promised to him soon in these circumstances?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to deal with the distribution of this untenanted land early next year.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. MEAGHERasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received a request to have the town of Castlecomer included in the sale of the Wandesforde estate when the Estates Commissioners are about sanctioning the sale of this property; whether the Commissioners were informed that the town tenants were willing to give Mr. Wandesforde fair and equitable terms for the holdings; and whether the Estates Commissioners will take steps to have the wishes of the tenants of the houses in the town of Castlecomer acceded to?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner has not included the houses in Castlecomer in the property which is the subject of proceedings for the sale under the Land Purchase Acts. A request on behalf of the town tenants has been received asking that the premises be included in the sale, and it

    713
    will be considered by the Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked when the Estates Commissioners intend sending their inspector to inspect the farms of eighty-three tenants on the Wandesforde property, Castlecomer, who requisitioned the Commissioners at the time of the signing of the purchase agreements to have their farms inspected before the sale would be sanctioned; and whether the Commissioners will notify the tenants of the date of the inspector's visit?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate is being sold direct to the tenants by the owner under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The papers in connection with the estate have been referred to the inspector, who has been directed to visit the estate. The holdings of any tenants whose purchase agreements do not come within the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, will be inspected for the purposes of security, and the tenants will be notified by the inspector of the date of his visit.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the interest on the purchase money of Butler's estate, of Ballyauss, county Kildare, for the first half of the year 1911 has been paid; and, if so, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the receipt for such payment, and also all documents relating to the sale and the affidavit used for the purpose of obtaining probate of Butler's will?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants on the estate for the half-year to the 1st May, 1911, has now been paid, the greater portion having only been received on the 27th instant, and is being paid over to Mr. M. H. Franks, the agent for the owner. The documents relating to the sale, which have been lodged in the offices of the Land Commission, can be inspected by any person interested. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the affidavit used for the purpose of obtaining probate of the vendor's will; it presumably is filed in the offices of the King's Bench Division (Probate) of the High Court of Justice in Ireland.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where these documents can be inspected?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They can be inspected at the offices of the Land Commission.

    Evicted Tenants (County Kilkenny).
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary if he will grant a Return of the names of evicted tenants in the county of Kilkenny who have made claims, or had claims forwarded for them, to the Estates Commissioners for restoration to their holdings or equivalent holdings, with the names of the estates from which they were evicted, and the number of such claims acceded to by the Estates Commissioners and the number still undealt with by the Commissioners?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not prepared to furnish the detailed Return asked for in the first part of the question. The particulars asked for in the concluding part of the question will be found in Table XXXVIII. appended to the Annual Report of the Commissioners for the year ended 31st March last.

    Poor Law Reform (Ireland).
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Government have a Bill on the question of Irish Poor Law reform prepared for introduction to Parliament; and whether, owing to the material difference in the conditions of Irish life since the operations of the Old Age Pension Act, he can see his way to have the Bill introduced and passed into an Act of Parliament for Ireland, having regard to the demands of all Irish public bodies to have the Poor Laws reformed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The heads of a Bill have been prepared, but it is not possible to make any statement at present with regard to the prospects of legislation.

    National Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked why national teachers who were promoted to first division of first grade from 1st April, 1910, have not yet received the salaries fixed for that grade, though Rule 105 (a) of the Commissioners of National Education says that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary for the grade to which they are promoted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on 9th July last.

    Fibbs Irwin Estate, County Mayo.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the tenants of the Fibbs Irwin estate, Turlough, county Mayo, in

    715
    Chancery, the owner being a lunatic, memorialised the late Lord Chancellor in 1903, with a view to the sale of the property under the Land Purchase Acts, and that they approached the agent with the like object, but were unsuccessful; that, after the passing of the Land Purchase Act, 1909, they memorialised the Congested Districts Board to approach the Lord Chancellor with a view to the sale of the property; did the Board communicate with the Lord Chancellor accordingly, and, if so, what was the nature of his reply; is he aware that, of the fifty-one tenants on the estate, forty-four are living on uneconomic holdings; can he give the names of the members of the committee appointed over the owner, the duties they have to perform, and the remuneration they receive for such duties; will the Board approach the present Lord Chancellor with a view to a voluntary sale; and, should he refuse to take action, will the Board proceed to acquire this congested estate compulsorily?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Registrar in Lunacy informs me that offers for purchase of their holdings were made by the tenants on this estate in 1903. The offers were considered inadequate and were refused on that ground. The Congested Districts Board have made no communication either to the Lord Chancellor or to the Lunacy Department as regards the sale of the estate. The estate is in charge of a Receiver. The Congested Districts Board have asked the solicitor in the matter to furnish maps and rental, but they have not yet been lodged. It is not apprehended that compulsory proceedings will be necessary.

    Fair-Wages Clause (Admiralty Contracts)
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the result of the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wage Clause by Messrs. A. and J. Inglis, Pointhouse, in the pay of their labourers?
    The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Inquiry was made last December into the question of the rate current in this district for unskilled labour, but after reference to the Board of Trade the Admiralty came to the conclusion on the evidence then available that the firm in question had not been proved to have failed to comply with the requirements of the Fair-Wages Clause. Later
    716
    the Admiralty asked for further evidence in support of the contention advanced that the rate current in the district was higher than that paid by Messrs. Inglis. So far no further evidence on this point has been obtained, and the Admiralty are therefore not in a position to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Have the Admiralty made inquiries with regard to the wages paid for similar labour in other yards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is it the fact that other shipbuilding firms in this district pay higher wages to their labourers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars I will make inquiries.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What does the Admiralty interpret as the current rate of the district? Is it the lowest rate paid by anyone in the district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not the lowest, but the rate current. Under the old Fair-Wages Clause we took every pains to ascertain what the current wage was.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is not the lowest rate the current rate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not under the old Clause, as the hon. Member is very well aware.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is not that the interpretation you give to the Fair-Wages Clause always?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the grounds on which the minimum wage for Government workmen in the London I establishments was raised to 24.s. a week; and if, upon sufficient grounds being shown him, he will advise a similar alteration being made in the minimum rate of wages paid to labourers in the out ports?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It appeared from the evidence furnished to the Government that the current rates of wages paid to labourers by good private employers in the London district were, on the whole, higher than the minimum rate hitherto paid to Government workmen in the same district, and when all the circumstances were taken into account, it was decided that the minimum rate should be 24s.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any petitions from the other ports?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. Three weeks ago I personally received, on behalf of the Admiralty, a petition from the Pembroke Dock workers, unskilled labourers, in favour of an increase of their minimum. That will be considered. I can give no assurance upon it, but the decision of the Board will be promulgated in due course.

    Royal Dockyards (Labour Exchanges).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the outside labour taken on at the Royal Dockyards is as a rule met by local requirements; whether he can cite any specific case during the last three years in which there has been an inefficiency of local labour when labour has been required at any of the naval ports; whether heads of departments will be allowed in the altered circumstances to send to the Labour Exchanges for the men they know and the men they want; is he aware of the feeling that is generated by giving work to men coming, say from Portsmouth to Devonport instead of employing Devonport men and vice versâ, and of the fact that this feeling will be generated if the Labour Exchanges throughout the kingdom are used for the supply of men at naval ports; and of what practical value will it be to have a comprehensive list available at the local office which is in touch with similar offices throughout the kingdom when there is more than sufficient local labour to meet the demand?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards unskilled labour, dockyard requirements can usually be met locally, but it has frequently been necessary to obtain skilled mechanics from a distance, as the local supply was exhausted. Heads of departments can, and do, send to the Labour Exchange for men they know. As far as possible local men are engaged, and as every care is taken only to bring men from other towns when necessary, I see no reason to anticipate the friction which the hon. Member suggests. As regards the last part of the question, I have already stated that the local supply is not always sufficient to meet requirements; and I have nothing to add to my previous answers, and the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in regard to the assistance which Labour Exchanges are able to afford to the yards.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will not the net result of this change be to add materially, artificially, to the number of persons engaged in Labour Exchanges?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, there is no change of substance in our policy, and the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman foresees are quite groundless.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that doubt has arisen whether women old age pensioners, whose husbands are in receipt of out-door relief, should be placed on the out-door relief list, and thereby be disfranchised at county and municipal elections; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent such disfranchisement; and (2) whether he is aware that considerable doubt has arisen as to whether, in the event of the wife of an old age pensioner receiving relief, such relief is to be considered as constructional relief to the husband, in which case his name would appear on the out-door relief list and he would be disfranchised; and whether, in view of this state of the law, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to remove such doubt?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Under Section 56 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, all relief given to, or on account of, a wife is to be considered as given to the husband of such wife. Such constructive relief would, no doubt, involve the disfranchisement of the husband, but I could not promise to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time. Relief given solely for a husband would not disqualify a wife, but I may point out that, apart from any question as to the receipt of poor relief, a married woman is not at present entitled to vote at county and municipal elections outside London.

    Casual Pauperism (London).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he contemplates making an order dealing with casual pauperism in London; who will bear the increased expenditure if any increased expenditure is entailed; whether the order involves the transfer of authority over casual paupers from the Poor Law unions to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, County Council, or any other authority; whether any similar order

    719
    will be put in force in any other part of the country; and whether he will give the House any opportunity of discussing any new order dealing with vagrancy before putting it in force?
    Mr. BURNS: I am considering whether it may not be possible to improve the present system of dealing with casuals in London by transferring to the Metropolitan Asylums Board the management of the casual wards. For the present, I am not proposing to touch the system in operation in the rest of the country. I shall be happy to consider any suggestions which hon. Members may wish to make to me on the London question, but I do not think it is necessary to defer dealing with it until there has been a formal discussion of the subject in this House.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it possible to make this transfer without legislation?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes, it is.

    Legal Appointments (Scotland).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether he has taken any action on the Report of the Committee on Minor Legal Appointments in Scotland; and, if so, will he say whether legislation is contemplated and on what lines?
    Mr. URE: The Report of the Committee on Minor Legal Appointments in Scotland has been under consideration, and steps are being taken to ascertain certain additional facts which were not under the notice of the Committee, with the view of determining to what extent legislation may be necessary in order to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evils which led to the Committee being appointed are very longstanding?
    Mr. URE: Yes; I am perfectly aware of that.

    Census Records (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state why, having regard to the fact that public registration of births was not commenced in Ireland until 1864, persons born in Ireland between 1851 and 1861, who have found it impossible to procure records of birth or evidence of age otherwise, have been refused access to the Census records of 1861?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated in reply to several questions on this subject, the Census Returns of 1861 are not now in existence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord BALCARRES: May I ask whether the Prime Minister can state the business for Friday, and, if possible, also for Monday next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take on—
Friday, the Report and Third Reading stages of the Naval Prize Bill; and on
Monday, the Report and Third Reading stages of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
Thereafter, from day to day, we hope to continue the Committee stage of the Insurance Bill. On some evenings, after 10.30, we shall proceed with some of the smaller Bills on the Paper. The Patronage Secretary will consult with the various parties in the House. To-night will be taken the concluding stages of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Bill.
Mr. LYTTELTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Naval Prize Bill does not raise a great many legal questions, and whether, from the point of view of practising barristers who are usually unable to attend on Friday, he thinks that is a desirable day to fix for the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are paid now."]
The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill has been two days in Grand Committee upstairs, and I am told after inquiry that so far as this side of the House is concerned Members of my profession are ready to make the sacrifice, as they always do.
Mr. LYTTELTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has really considered that the fact of this Bill having been in Grand Committee altogether is not an additional reason why a free day should be taken, inasmuch as those who belong to my profession are not always able to make the sacrifice of such time?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall see what progress we make. We do not want to hurry it.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the Prime Minister going to make the sacrifice himself up to perhaps ten o'clock?
Mr. A. G. C. HARVEY: May I ask the Prime Minister when he means to take the Mines Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not say at present.

BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
Mr. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—whether having regard to the important statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the Brussels Convention, and the great difficulties which are being caused at the present time to manufacturers and consumers in this country owing to the scarcity and high price of sugar, he can see his way to fulfil the conditional promise he made to give an opportunity to the House to express its views on the subject before any final decision is reached by His Majesty's Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: I wish to have longer notice of that question. I will reply on Thursday.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Stanley Owen Buckmaster, Esquire, K.C., for County of York, Northern Part of the West Riding (Keighlcy Division).

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Mr. FORSTER: In view of the importance of the Debate which is to take place on Thursday on the Insurance Bill, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a statement as to the actuarial position of women under the Bill before we reach Clause 34 in Committee? May I also make the suggestion that, in view of the very large number of Amendments put down on the Paper and which I understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes to accept, he should, if possible, issue a reprint of the Clause showing how it will read after the Amendments he proposes to add have been made?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think it would be of advantage to do that. I understand that what the hon. Gentleman means is that we should reprint the Clause with our own Amendments inserted in
722
order to show how it would read. We cannot do that without the House expressing a wish to have it done, but I understand that that is the general desire. Therefore, I will see that it is done. With regard to the first question, I will do my very best to circulate some statement of that kind if possible in the course of the day. I will see the actuaries about it.
Mr. FORSTER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that on 5th July he promised that we should be in possession of this statement as to the actuarial position of women before the Clause is reached.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. The reason why that was not done is that there has been a good deal of negotiation on the part of those who claim to represent women—trade unions and a good many societies. There have been various suggestions put forward, and we had to adopt one or other of the suggestions.
Bill further considered in Committee.
[PROGRESS, 30 th October.—FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Deficit.)
  (1) If upon any such valuation a deficiency is found, the following provisions shall apply:—

  (a) If the deficiency is shown by a branch of an approved society, it shall, in the first place, so far as possible, be made good out of any surplus in the hands of the central body or other central authority of the society:

  Provided that the society may, if it is satisfied that the deficiency is due to any maladministration on the part of the branch in question, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, refuse to make good the deficiency or any part thereof out of such surplus:

  (b) Subject as aforesaid, every deficiency shall be made good in accordance with a scheme for that purpose to be prepared by the society and submitted to the Insurance Commissioners for their sanction} such a scheme shall provide for making good the deficiency, within a period

  723
  of three years from the date at which the valuation was made, in any one or more of the following ways:—

  (i) By a compulsory levy upon members of the society or branch being insured persons;

  (ii) By reducing the rate of sickness benefit or maternity benefit;

  (iii) By deferring the date as from which sickness benefit becomes payable;

  (iv) By reducing the first or the second period of thirteen weeks during which sickness benefit is payable, or both such periods;

  (v) By increasing the period which is required by this part of this Act to elapse between two periods of disease or disablement to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other,

  and on the sanction of the Insurance Commissioners being given to the scheme the society shall proceed to make good the deficiency in accordance therewith:

  (e) Payment of the amount of any compulsory levy made in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under this Section may be enforced in such manner as may be provided by the rules of the society; and where those rules so provide it shall be lawful for the society in the case of any member to enforce payment of the amount of the levy by giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer of such member requiring him to pay the amount of the levy, and upon such notice being given such amount shall be payable as if it were part of the contribution to be made by the employer on behalf of the member, and all the provisions of this part of this Act relating to the payment of such contributions shall apply accordingly:

  (d) If within six months after the declaration of a deficiency, or where an inquiry as to excessive sickness is pending under this part of this Act, such longer period as the Insurance Commissioners determine, such scheme as aforesaid has not been submitted to and approved by the Insurance Commissioners, or if at any time thereafter it appears to the Insurance Commissioners that the society or branch to which the
  724
  scheme relates is not enforcing the provisions of the scheme, the Insurance Commissioners may take over the administration of the affairs of the society or branch under this part of this Act, and shall as soon as possible thereafter take such steps as they may think necessary to make good the deficiency by any or all of the methods mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, and for that purpose they shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the powers given to the society by this Section:

  (e) Any question or dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society in respect of the amount of the deficiency, or as to the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good, shall be decided by an independent valuer to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice:

  (f) A scheme made under this section shall not affect any person who becomes a member of the society after the date as at which the valuation was made, or any member over seventy years of age:

  (g) Any member of the society, being an insured person, who is transferred to another society before the deficiency is made good, shall be liable to any levy or reduction of benefits which may be made in respect of such deficiency in like manner in all respects as if he had not ceased to be a member.

  (2) Any member liable to a levy payable at intervals may relieve himself of the liability thereto on payment to the Insurance Commissioners of the capitalised value thereof ascertained in the prescribed manner.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, to insert the following words at the end of paragraph (i), Sub-section (1), "Provided that no such compulsory levy shall be made upon persons whose wages or other remuneration are less than 30s. per week, or during any period in which any person is temporarily out of employment."
  This Clause makes an arrangement that if a deficiency is shown at the end of a certain period through anything that may happen, a compulsory levy may be made upon the members of an approved society in order to maintain the benefits laid down in the Act. All members may be called upon to pay. It is not quite so well-known outside that the benefits are not

  725
  granted either by the Government or by anyone else. I am certain also that it is not known that the majority of members of an approved society may be able in exercise of the power conferred upon them to put upon the members a compulsory levy which some of them may not be able to pay and which may press very severely upon them. In all these societies there would be people earning various wages and living under various conditions, and a levy, which is quite easy for a man earning from £2 to £2 10s. a week, may be a tremendous injustice to a man earning only 18s. a week. Men with wives and families whose wages are over 15s. a week will be, under this Bill, compelled to pay just as much money as those earning more than £3 a week. That part of the Bill is not under discussion just now, but we are discussing whether a levy may be compulsory or not. It may be said that everyone must have this 10s. a week, and it is necessary for the benefits to be kept up, but that is a kind of compulsory arrangement in which certain things are not taken into consideration. A man running a family may want a good many things, but he has to choose, or his wife as a rule has to do so, because the woman has to do the management, which are the most important things to provide, and there are many families where the 4d. will be quite as much as they can pay, and in many cases more than they can afford to pay. But if you allow a levy to be put on in addition at the end of three years, you will be imposing a grievous hardship on very many poor people, and you will be saying to them, although you may want this extra 2d. for some other purpose, you shall put it by in case you are ill, or a baby is going to be born, or for some other purpose.
  First of all, I object to making the 4d. compulsory, but I think there is a much stronger argument against making a compulsory levy in this manner. I may be asked why I limit myself to 30s. Personally, I have a great deal of experience of a 30s. income, and I know just how far it goes in keeping a man and his family in anything like decency. I have had the experience of having a great deal more than 30s. a week and having only 30s. a week, and I want to tell the House that all the talk which we hear about poor people wasting their money who earn only 30s. a week in London is the sheerest nonsense. When I was earning that money I never smoked; I never went to a theatre; I never drank beer. I spent practically all my money at home, and yet I had to run out of the
  726
  Hearts of Oak Society because I could not make up the payments to that society. That was on a 30s. a week wage; and when I hear of what people can do on 30s. I go back on my experience. Our children had to be fed and clothed and every penny we did get had to be spent on them out of this 30s. a week wages. Therefore, in moving my Amendment, I fix it at 30s. not from any theoretic idea that 30s. is some magic sum, but because I know from actual experience how far it will go for people spending their money in what I consider a decent manner and getting full value for every penny. Under this Clause you are going to allow a society that may have people earning £3 a week to inflict on some of their poorer members a very grave injustice. I do not think I need argue the case with regard to unemployment. The arrears sooner or later will have to be paid unless the society is going to become bankrupt. Still the compulsory levy ought not to be inflicted. I hope that the Committee will give this Amendment the consideration it deserves.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is an Amendment which cannot possibly be accepted. I think, on reflection, that the hon. Member himself will see that it will not work. He proposes that if a society, through bad management, is forced to make a levy, it should be confined to all the members of that society whoso wages are over 30s. a week. That is quite an impossible proposition. No society could survive a distinction of that kind drawn between one class of members and another. The 30s. a week members may be in a minority; the deficiency may be due to action against which they protested. It may be due to some slackness for which the majority are responsible and which the 30s. a week people took an active part in resisting. Still it is an impossible proposition that the whole burden should fall on members whose incomes are above that sum, and I do not think that the Committee would accept an Amendment of that character. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, if there is any doubt at all about it, I would rather accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury, which does deal in a practical form with that difficulty. I shall have something to say purely on the drafting of that Amendment, but I do not object to it at all. He protects the unemployed by means of an Amendment which I think is a practical suggestion. But to

  727
  say that you are not to levy at all upon the unemployed, and that the whole burden should fall upon the others, is a thing that I cannot do.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 238.

  Division No. 356.]

  AYES.

  [4.3 p.m.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Watt, Henry A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snowden, P.

  Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Jowett.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Adamson, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Martin, J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falconer, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, Philip

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Munro, R.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hackett, J.

  O'Connor, P. T. (Liverpool)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Mallcy, William

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Boland, John Plus

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Brace, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Brady, P. J.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Hinds, John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Johnson, W.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Radford, G. H.

  Clough, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarborough)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Keating, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Robinson, Sydney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  De Forest, Baron

  Lundon, T.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheeny, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, W.

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wadsworth, John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Younger, Sir George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Webb, H.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Amendment made: Paragraph (ii.), leave out the words "or maternity benefit."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii.)—"by deferring the date as from which sickness benefit becomes payable."
  I move this Amendment in order to elicit information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the actual meaning of the paragraph. It is not at all clear whether the date refers to what is called the waiting period, or whether it refers as to what is known as the qualifying period—that is to say, the months after entering into membership. It is a very important point. If it refers to the qualifying period, the effect will be that in the vast majority of cases the younger members of the society will be penalised in order to make up the deficiencies created by the older members. In fact, the whole burden of the deficiency will really be thrown on the younger members. The reason of it is this, as hon. Members will clearly see, that the waiting periods do not in the nature of the case apply to the older members, who have got no waiting period. The only persons who are affected are the younger members who enter for the first time. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make up the deficiency by extending the waiting period, he can only do it at the cost of the younger members.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This paragraph refers to alternative methods by which the society can make up a deficiency. We are not at any rate prescribing anything in these matters; it is only a general permission. The paragraph refers not to the qualifying period, but to the days upon which sickness begins to date. For instance, three days is now the time in the Bill. They may take another day, and by taking another day they may be able to make up the deficiency. By starting to pay additional benefit they may restore the three days, but if at the end of the second three years there is a deficiency they will say, "Very well, we will go back to the
  730
  first method, and take the decision of the date as the third and fourth days instead of the first." That is all it means.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in paragraph (iii.) to leave out the word "date," and to insert instead thereof the word "day."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (v.), "By increasing the period which is required by this part of this Act to elapse between two periods of disease or disablement to prevent one being treated as a continuation of the other."
  This paragraph is to enable the wiping out of a deficiency by extending the period between the illnesses. There is no doubt it is far far more important really, from an actuarial point of view, to try and stop deficiencies in the future. If this paragraph merely refers to future deficiencies it may be an extremely good piece of machinery for stopping future deficiencies from growing. I have been in very close contact with various actuaries, and they toll me it is quite impossible for any actuary to make up his mind as to the value of extending the period to wipe out an existing deficiency. I think the principle of trying to wipe out future deficiencies by extending the period is a good principle, and I have put down a new Clause containing that. I do not think, however, that this paragraph is of the slightest good in the machinery of the Bill, because no actuary could possibly calculate the value of extending the period.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see why this should not stand as one of the alternative expedients to which the society may resort. It is left entirely to themselves. They will naturally be anxious to avoid a substantial reduction in benefits, and also to avoid imposing any additional levy on their members, and they will try

  731
  several expedients, I have no doubt, with the object of avoiding those. They may save a few thousands by one expedient, and perhaps a few hundreds by another, and between them they may come to the conclusion that they will be able to make up the deficiency. They may find, for instance, that a deficiency is due to malingering, and if they come to that conclusion, I think they will probably say, "on the whole we will adopt the plan of fining, because the position of our society is due to the fact that there is too much malingering." I hope the hon. Gentleman will not seek to cut this out of the number of statutory suggestions with the view to reducing the deficiency.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite right in thinking that this will be a really efficient protection against malingering? Malingering may of course take the form of a fresh claim, but surely that is a form of malingering which is easier to check than to check the continuance of an old claim on which I should have thought it may arise, and would more probably. I do not want to make general charges of malingering or anything of that kind. We all of us know, and we have it on the evidence of everybody who have dealt with these matters, that they have to take account of the fact that some members will try to malinger. I do not want to do anything which makes it difficult for a society to put a check on malingering, which is nothing less than the robbing by a few of their many friends in the society to which "they belong. I really feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is leaning on a slight support if he trusts to any great extent to this Sub-section, or the means indicated in it, as a protection against malingering.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am bound to say that in my experience of the Hearts of Oak Society the main method of imposition and malingering is the way pointed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is to say, by trying to obtain for the same disease within a short period the benefits under the sickness relief. It is a very common method, and although I do not think it is easy to determine what amount will be obtained by the society by exercising their power under this Section, yet on the general principle that it is wise to leave the greatest latitude to the friendly societies, I should be averse to taking it out.
  Mr. AMERY: In connection with this point, may I ask what probability is there that the approved societies will avail themselves of these different alternatives, all of which will involve the loss of some portion of the State two-ninths as against the first alternative, namely, a levy which insures the full value of the State two-ninths.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and where those rules so provide it shall be lawful for the society in the case of any member to enforce payment of the amount of the levy by giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer of such member requiring him to pay the amount of the levy, and upon such notice being given such amount shall be payable as if it were part of the contribution to be made by the employer on behalf of the member, and all the provisions of this part of this Act relating to the payment of such contributions shall apply accordingly," and insert the words "provided that in no case shall such compulsory levy be enforced by or through the employer of such member by way of deduction from his wages."
  I hope that this Amendment will meet with more support than the one I moved just now. We are for the first time in the history of the country levying a tax on a man's wages, and now we propose to levy something which this House will have nothing to do with. The society may call on a man to pay and go to the man's employer, as I read the Clause, tell him that the man is in arrears and ask him to deduct, the amount from the man's weekly wages. I do not want to argue, about the popularity or unpopularity of the matter, but I do want to argue it from the point of view of levying taxes. Up to now you are supposed in this House to levy taxes on persons according to their ability to pay, and, as a rule, the tax is levied by a vote of this House. You are now going, by Act of Parliament, to delegate to someone else the right to go to the man's employer and deduct something of which this House may have no cognisance at all. I for one think that that is a gross infringement of the right of a man to spend his wages in his own fashion. The answer made just now is that these people may have been responsible for bad management. I turn the case round and say that they may not have been responsible for the bad management. It may have been the other and

  733
  wealthy members of the society who may have been responsible for the entire management of the society, whether it is good or whether it is bad. I base my case against this arrangement of going to the employer for the compulsory levy on this, that this House has no right to delegate the function of levying taxation to somebody else, and has no right to levy it in this kind of fashion by deducting it from the man's wages at the end of the week. I say, further, that there is nothing, it seems to me, to prevent this Committee or the House of Commons, if it continues in this sort of spirit, saying at a later date that a man shall put so much per week into the savings bank or spend so much on his clothes or on any other particular thing. For those reasons I trust the Committee will give the Amendment a little more consideration than the last one I proposed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Amendment is of exactly the same character as the last, as it is hopelessly impracticable. The levy can only be imposed by the society. It is not imposed by the State or the Insurance Commissioners. The society is self-governing, and the levy can only be carried by a majority of the members. The hon. Gentleman's idea of a society seems to be that a man should be able to take part in a self-governing body and, if he carries the majority, then everybody is to submit; and that, on the other hand, if he does not, he is not to submit. The hon. Member is the most hopeless individualist in the House, although he thinks he is a collectivist.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think anything. I know what I am.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Suppose there is a levy made by the society, and that everybody knows he can pay or not, as he pleases, does anybody think that the society will get much money out of that kind of levy, which would be a sort of voluntary rate? It would be as well not to have a levy at all. It would be far better if the hon. Member proposed that there should be no levy at all, but a reduction of benefits.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide that the contributions, which are increased or levied, will actually get to the credit of the proper society? The position is this, a society is in a deficiency, and it is agreed by the majority that there should be a levy—
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this point, which has only to do with the machinery for the collection of the levy.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) were to confine his Amendment to the first part of his proposal, namely, to leave out the last words of the Section, I should most heartily support him, although I am bound to add that I do not see my way to support his proposed alternative words, as, being somewhat impracticable I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot quite see what the object of the final words of paragraph (c) is. If it is left with the words, "may be enforced in such manner as may be provided by the rules of the society." that really gives all that is wanted. The remaining words seem to me only to lay undue emphasis on the fact that the odium, of collection is going to be taken off the society and thrown on to the employer. The odium that is already going to be thrown on every employer in taking 4d. per week out of the workman's wages is going to be very considerable, especially in the country districts. If you are going to add to that the increased odium to which the employer will certainly be subject if he is made responsible for keeping the levy which the society requires out of his workmen, then I think you are throwing on to the employer an undue odium, and one which he ought not to be called on to bear. In my opinion the words are not necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member confines himself to the last words and objects to the levy being made by way of reduction of wages. Unless you make the levy by way of deduction from wages it would be a very costly matter to collect. You would have to set up special machinery for the collection from the individual member. The whole advantage of the State system is that the collection, at any rate, is very cheap. There is no odium on the employer, because the society, through a majority of its members, must have passed a resolution to begin with. If there is any odium at all it is simply as far as the minority is concerned. The minority may object to it, but the majority will have passed a resolution in favour of the levy. A notification would have to be given to the employer of that fact, and he would collect the extra halfpenny or

  735
  penny, as the case may be, from the members of that society. That is not at all an impossible thing.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If a notification is given to the employer, will it be given simultaneously to the employed contributor? That would to some extent relieve the odium to which I have referred.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I assume that if a society has passed a resolution there must have been notice given to the members of the intention to propose the resolution. In some of the larger societies it would be done by means of a ballot. At any rate, every member is notified of the intention of the society to pass a resolution of that character. Therefore the employés will know about it. Then a notfiication will be sent to the employer that that society by a majority of its members has passed a resolution, and that in the case of all those employés who are members of that society he must deduct the extra penny or whatever it may be. It is the only way in which it can be done without increasing enormously the expense of administration.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The question of notification is rather important, because many of the employed contributors are and will be somewhat ignorant of the provisions of the Bill. Will the notification be in this form—that a notice has been sent by the society to their employer requesting him to make this deduction? If it is done in that way I think that no hardship will be done.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The society can do that by means of its rules. Under Subsection (c) the methods are to be prescribed by the society itself, and I should have thought that that would be a very reasonable rule.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it absolutely necessary to bring in the employer. Of course, there must be compulsion, but, speaking as an employer, it will be a very disagreeable duty to have to make this deduction. It is quite different from the ordinary deduction under the Bill. It really makes the employer a means for the recovery of a debt, and, to my mind, there is great objection to it. I think the money might be recovered without any reference to the employer at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will my hon. Friend tell me how?
  Mr. W. PEARCE: How are all other debts recovered?
  Mr. NEWTON: During an earlier discussion there was great anxiety on the part of Labour Members that employers should not know in what society their employés were insured, and that they should have no way of finding out. If these words are retained in the Bill it is obvious that in the case of a deficiency, at any rate, it will be brought very forcibly to the employer's notice in what society his employés are insured.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not necessarily. There are several ways in which that can be avoided. You might have a card of a different colour when collecting the extra money, or there might be a notice stamped on the card. No doubt an employer could trace the society if he chose to take the trouble, but there would be nothing on the card necessarily.
  Mr. NEWTON: How can the card reach the employer? The society must notify the employer, and that must mean, at all events as regards the member about whom the notice has been received, that the employer will know what society he is in.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The card will be stamped by the employer, but if it is a card with a notification of that kind upon it, he will not know the name of the society.
  Mr. NEWTON: How will a notification be stamped on the card the first time the deduction has to be made?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have appreciated the effect of his own words. The society may in the case of any member enforce payment by giving notice in the prescribed form to the employer of such member. That at once makes the employer the only possible authority for making the deduction. May I point out how exceeding difficult it will be for the employer of a large number of workmen. If an employer has 1,000 hands it will be perfectly simple for him to arrange to deduct the 4d. and 3d. week by week from the men's wages, and to put it on the card. But suppose some are insured in the Hearts of Oak, and a deficiency occurs. In using the name of any society, I want to use one in regard to which I cannot be assumed to be casting the slightest aspersion. We know that it is not likely to occur in regard to the Hearts of Oak or the Manchester Unity. If a deficiency

  737
  occurs a notice is sent to the employer that thirty men, giving their names, are to pay an extra 1d. a week for a certain number of weeks. Suppose further that a certain number of men are in the Manchester Unity and a deficiency arises there. Notice comes that twenty-five men, names so and so, are to pay an extra ½d. a week. Then there may be a small club in connection with which there is an extra 2d. to be paid. See the extreme complexity of the matter so far as the unfortunate employer is concerned. He must know the particular society. He or his clerk will have to send for the particular workmen. If you deduct 5d. instead of 4d., the workman will say, "Why are you deducting 5d.?" The employer will have to say, "I have received this notice from your society asking me to deduct an extra 1d." Nearly every workman will be perfectly entitled to be satisfied, before he allows the deduction, that a levy has really been made. Think of the work you are putting upon the employer to prove to his workmen week by week that there has been a levy made, and to see that he does not make the levy for more than the required number of weeks. I do not often side with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but on this occasion I do, from a somewhat different point of view, though I have great sympathy with him also from the point of view from which he originally moved the Amendment. I believe the Clause will be totally unworkable in any works where a large number of men, insured in different societies, are employed, and under these circumstances I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reconsider the form of words.
  Mr. AMERY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee just now that members of a society in connection with which there was a levy would be notified. If they are to be notified of the fact that there is a levy, could they not be notified that if the levy was not paid they would lose all benefits or be suspended from the society? In fact, that would have to be done in the case of voluntary contributors. When societies by way of an additional benefit arrange for a reduction of contributions the Bill has not provided that employers should be informed. It is left to the society. When a society has a deficiency—according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, usually through bad management—why should the trouble, expense and difficulty of raising the extra
  738
  contribution in respect to certain specified men be imposed upon the employer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is a democratic arrangement, not a State arrangement—that it is imposed by a self-governing society. But imposed upon whom? Upon an employer who is not a member of the society. It seems to me a perfectly unreasonable burden to place upon him. It was simply and solely on the ground of the inconvenience of making employers raise different rates in regard to different men, and of letting employers know to what society their men belong, that the valuable Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), that members should be allowed to contribute to the society direct, and not through the employer at all, was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declared that its acceptance would strike at the very root of the machinery of the Bill. It seems to me that these words strike at the same root as far as the convenience of working is concerned, and I would suggest that they should be left out, even if the proposed additional words are not inserted.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: Different views seems to be taken of this Clause. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) discussed if as if it applied to the arrears of individual members. The Clause applies to the deficiencies on the valuation of the society as a whole. When such a deficiency has been found it may be made good by one of certain specified methods. Amongst those methods is the making of a levy—a perfectly simple thing, which is done by every trade union and friendly society to-day. The Bill proposes that approved societies shall have power by a majority vote of their members to make such a levy, and that they shall proceed to collect it at the source in the same way as the ordinary contribution is collected. For myself I shall support the Bill as it stands, because I believe it will be perfectly consistent with what we have already done, and that any other method of collecting the money would be more costly, and would not be likely to lead to as good a result in avoiding deficits in the societies.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Halifax has told us that in the case of trade unions and friendly societies a levy is perfectly easy to collect. It will be, he says, collected in the same way as the original contribution was. If the trade unions find it perfectly easy to collect that extra levy direct from the men

  739
  why should not approved societies also adopt that same perfectly simple method which is already in working order?
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: It is quite simple, because you have a society within a society. But here you will have members of a friendly society who will not belong to the approved societies. So far, therefore, as this is concerned it will not be so easy to collect the levies as when you have a compact body like a trade union.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: I differ from the hon. Member in this particular. There will have to be two kinds of levies, because, as has been pointed out, in the case of the voluntary contributors the levy will have to be collected direct. Consequently in some cases the societies will have to collect from the men themselves, and I shall certainly support the Amendment, which leaves the societies to deal direct with the contributors in all cases of levies.
  Mr. MOUNT: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question with regard to the character of the levy. We are told that the employer must be notified. There will be a large number of people who have to come in under this Bill, and I would like to know when the men themselves do not know who their employer will be, how can any notification be given to the employer of such persons.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not sure, under the rules of the House, whether or not I will be entitled to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment as moved, and then to move it to leave out all the words after the word "society" ["the rules of the society"]?
  The CHAIRMAN: The effect that the hon. Member desires will be produced by the question I am going to put, which is to leave out words down to a certain word, in order to protect a manuscript Amendment that another hon. Member has handed in. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried it will knock out the whole of the words to the end of the paragraph.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to detain the Committee except to say this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I am an individualist, though I am a collectivist. Collectivism means bearing one another's burdens. This Bill does nothing of the kind. I also want to say, in answer
  740
  to him on the other point, that if these were voluntary societies I should quite agree that the majority should rule, but these are compulsory societies. You are going to compulsorily levy a man who may not be at all responsible for the consequences that the levy is provided to meet. Therefore, I am going to stick to that part of the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it will really assist the Committee to come to a decision—for I do not want to disguise it that this is a difficult matter, and I do not think it is simple to find an answer to the various points which have been put—if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to tell us how he proposes to deal with such cases as put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Berkshire. An hon Friend below the Gangway suggested that it will be perfectly easy for the societies to make this additional levy from their own members if required without the mediation of the employer. The hon. Member suggests that under this Bill the matter will be comparatively easy, as there will be a society within a society. Take the case of a trade union, although it might equally apply to a friendly society. There will be a society within the trade union. Not all the members of the trade union would be members of an approved society. That, thought the hon. Gentleman was fatal to the collection through the trade union. The employer then is going to have, as it were, a society within a society in his works. Instead of making a general levy from all his men at the same moment, particular men have to be picked out and a different deduction made from their wages than that made from the wages of the others. I do not think that anybody thinks that that in itself is a very good or a desirable thing to happen if it can be avoided.
  I am quite certain that every employer who is consulted will say that it is a very invidious task which he will gladly be saved. But I am not quite clear that I can find a better alternative. We have got to find an alternative, for instance, in connection with the class suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire, namely, the case of casual labourers. How is a man who does occasional jobs going to have his contribution deducted by the employer, who happens to take him on the Monday of each week, and who is not always the same man? How is the society, in the words of the Bill, to notify the employer of such a man of the deduction and

  741
  require him to make it? The society would not know that the man had changed his employment; the man himself does not know who his employer will be! You have to find some other way to deal with this case, and possibly the way you will find might be the way which will be available for all. That would relieve us of the necessity of putting this additional duty on the employer. At any rate, if we had the Government's proposals for dealing with this casual class before us it might enable us to see whether we could not apply those proposals more widely, and to the whole range of the cases which we are now discussing.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot now discuss the question of the casual labourer. I can only deal with it in so far as it concerns this particular point. But there is really no difficulty. As I have already explained to the Committee, the notification to the employer will be on the face of the man's card. The moment a society decides that there shall be an additional levy fresh cards must be issued to the members of that society, and on the face of the card there will be a notification that the employer has to deduct 5d. instead of 4d. Take the case put by the hon. Member, the case of the casual labourer. His card is marked 4d. The next time he goes to his employer there is a change in the rules of the society, and he has to pay 5d. A fresh card has been issued, and on the face of that card there will be a notification to whoever employs him that 5d. is to be deducted. Really it is not so difficult a matter. In Germany the employer has five different deductions to make. There are five classes of workmen, and under the German scheme they have to distinguish between the five classes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What is to happen if the man does not take his card, or takes his card and gets it marked two or three weeks ahead? If he gets 4d. marked on on it, what are you going to do?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That will not be an offence by the employer. That will be an offence by the man, which will have to be dealt with.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Chancellor has not replied finally to the point raised by my hon. Friend, that the employer will get to know exactly what society the men are insured in. I had a deputation of working-men members of friendly societies some time ago, who insisted upon this very point. They drew attention to the fact that it was very undesirable that employers should get to know in all cases, and if these words are left in he undoubtedly will get to know. It might be possible to avoid this by other words.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this question between now and the Report stage? I will tell him why: It is quite possible that trade unions will become approved societies, and they may show a deficiency. If that is so, what about the fears of those hon. Gentlemen in this House who have tried to safeguard the trade unions from having to tell the employers? As the Bill is now, if the trade unionist shows a deficiency his employer will have to be notified that, say, John Brown must have extra money deducted from his wages because he is a member of a society which shows a deficiency. Unfortunately we have employers who object to their men being trade unionists, and under this Bill it may be that these men will be victimised. I appeal to the Chancellor to give this question, if possible, consideration, and to devise a better method between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If I may respectfully suggest it to ray hon. Friend, rather than that I should consider the problem between now and the Report stage he might read the Bill between now and the Report stage. If he will do that he will find that it is left entirely to the trade unions to decide which way to collect the money. The union need not notify the employer if the members do not want the employer to know.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 357.]

  AYES.

  [5.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bentham, G. J.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Adamson, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Boland, John Plus

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Alden, Percy

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Brace, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pointer, Joseph

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

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

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Reddy, Michael

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lundon, T.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  De Forest, Baron

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sheehy, David

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dillon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Donelan, Captain Anthony Charles

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Doris, William

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Falconer, James

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wardie, George J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waring, Walter

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Munro, Robert

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Webb, H.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Dowd, John

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

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  O'Shaughaessy, P. J.

  Younger, Sir George

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cassel, Felix

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cator, John

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Ashley, W. W.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Astor, Waldorf

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Croft, H. P.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Barrie, H. T.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  744

  745

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Fell, Arthur

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Foster, Philip Stavaley

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldman, C. S.

  Martin, Joseph

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Grady, James

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Jowett.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Amendment made in paragraph (c): After the word "contributions" ["payment of such contributions shall apply"], to insert the words "and the recovery thereof from members"].—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at end or paragraph (c) to insert, (d) "if a member chargeable with a levy fans into arrear his arrears shall reckon as though the total sum thereof, inclusive of the levy, consisted of a weekly sum of the premium payable by him had no levy been made."
  If a levy is made to meet a deficiency and a member keeps up his contribution, he is paying so much, of course, every week to meet the deficiency, but if a member is not paying a contribution and the levy is running he is not only not paying his contribution but also he is not paying the levy to meet the deficiency. As hon. Members know, when a member is in arrear his benefits are reduced in accordance with the number of weekly contributions not paid, and therefore it seems to me only fair in calculating the arrears of members who ought to have been paying the levy to meet the deficiency to take this into account. This is somewhat complicated, but it seems to me the proper way is to add all the additional levies together which the member ought to have paid and find out how many additional weeks of ordinary premium at 4d. represents the addition, and then to add these additional weeks of arrears to the weeks of arrears he would be liable for on deficiency levies. In this way a man in arrear would be sharing the burden of deficiency with his fellow-members. I hope the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) thinks that is the proper way. The Government may say the case is covered by the first three lines of Sub-section (c) where the question of
  746
  levies is settled by the Insurance Commissioners, but I think it is really impossible for a society to enforce any payment of levy if the member does not want to pay the levy, and therefore I think the society ought to be given the power of recovering a levy in this manner by calculating the weeks a member is in arrear and adding it to the levy.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Before I reply to the hon. Member, perhaps I might inform the Committee that my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tells me that the White Paper with all the Amendments will be in the Vote Office this evening giving the actuarial calculations. The point the hon. Member has raised is a difficult point, and I am not quite sure that the Bill, as it stands, is perfectly clear. The word "arrears" in the Bill is a term of art. The contributor only suffers if he is in arrears under Clause 10. If the hon. Member turns to Clause 10 he will find when the contributor is in arrear more than four weeks and less than thirteen weeks, he suffers certain loss of benefits. He will suffer further loss of benefit if he is in arrear more than thirteen weeks, but it is not quite clear whether an arrear of levy is an arrear of contribution, and it is therefore not clear at all whether a contributor would suffer anything by means of being in arrear in respect of levy. The Bill I think as it stands goes a good deal further than the hon. Member proposes. He suggests that arrears in respect of levies should not be distributed over a total number of weeks in which the contributor is in arrears in respect of contribution, but that the arrears in respect of levy should be added together and contributed as additional weeks. The point will have to be

  747
  considered before the report of Clause 10 whether the arrears of levy should be considered as arrears of contribution at all. I think as the Bill stands they would not be arrears of contribution, and therefore the non-payment of arrears of levies would not bring any loss to the contributor. The only deprivation of benefits he can suffer is under Clause 10 when he is in arrear in respect of contribution. As I say, the point will be considered before the Report stage of Clause 10, and it will be made clear, if it is not made clear already, that arrears of levy are not arrears of contribution.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very clear statement of the position in answer to my hon. Friend, but he has not told us what machinery he proposes for the collection of the arrears of levy. My hon. Friend has made this proposal with a view to giving the Government an opportunity of saying whether they are going to put in machinery for that purpose and of giving them an opportunity of saying whether it is proposed to treat arrears of levy in the same way as arrears of contribution. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the gap in his Bill, but he has come to no definite decision as to how the gap is to be filled. He has intimated that the matter will engage the attention of the Government on Report, and we have been told that when the Report stage comes the Government will tell us what their official decision is.
  Mr. McKENNA: The point will be dealt with on Clause 10.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I take it that the Home Secretary had the support of the right hon. Gentleman near him in his exposition of the law. It seems to me that the matter is much clearer than he thinks, and perhaps even clearer than my hon. Friend below me thinks. The arrears would be collected under the rules of the approved society, and supposing they were not paid in a lump sum, in all probability the member, after a stated time, would be expelled from the society. What my hon. Friend proposes is a mitigation of the rules and he ought to be supported by those who wish to make what has been the great disadvantage and the hardship of the existing system weigh less heavily upon the working people. I do not say that the form of words proposed is the best, because that is a matter of interpretation, but I am quite
  748
  sure it is better than the existing practice, and if they are not inserted the rules of the society will prevail, and that will make it much harder for the individual member.
  Mr. BOOTH: There are two considerations to be borne in mind, and I thought the object of the hon. Member was to meet them both. We have to consider, not only the fairness to the man, but we have to pay some consideration to the society to see that it does not lose the money, because the man in arrear may be one of those whose conduct has led to the deficiency. The man does not fall out of benefit through being in arrear of the levy. I am not sure that the Bill meets this point, and perhaps the Amendment is an improvement; but I want those two considerations kept in mind, namely, the fairness to the man and the society as well. Both should be fairly dealt with, and there should not be an amount of arrears the society cannot collect.
  Mr. McKENNA: The whole point is really one which should be raised on Clause 10, which deals with arrears. When the contributor is in arrear he is not liable to be sued. All he is liable for is to suffer a reduction of benefits, and the point is whether he should suffer a reduction of benefits if in arrear in respect of levy as well as contribution. As a matter of fact, it will be considered on the Report stage of Clause 10.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will there be time to consider it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it will be considered then, and if thought necessary the Government will bring forward an Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly said that he would accept this Amendment subject to certain necessary alterations, and that was really the reason why I moved it. There is no doubt about that, for it was quite distinct, and he said he would accept it.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is only a question of whether it is provided for in the Bill or not. If it is not in the Bill already the point will be dealt with upon the Report of Clause 10. The hon. Member will not be prevented from raising this point again on Clause 10. Under the Bill, as the hon. Member will see, arrears cannot be collected by the society as a right. The remedy for the society is to reduce the

  749
  benefits of the person in arrear, and under Clause 10 the remedy of the society is dealt with. It is there that the proposal of the hon. Member will be more properly brought up.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman really must know that my hon. Friend will not have an opportunity of moving anything upon Clause 10. The Home Secretary was not in the House at the time, but I appeal to the Under-Secretary to the Home Department on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly said he was prepared to accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman added that he was not prepared to commit himself to the drafting, and no doubt some alterations might have to be made on Report, but he said he was willing to accept the principle of the Amendment. As my hon. Friend will not be able to bring it forward on Report and have it discussed, surely it can be put into the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already stated that a Government Amendment, if it is found to be necessary to carry out this purpose, will be inserted on Report of Clause 10. Up to the present we have not been able to decide whether it is necessary or not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment now, and finds on the Report stage that the Amendment is wrong, or requires further amendment, it will be in the power of the Government to make such an Amendment. If the Amendment is not accepted now, on the Report stage my hon. Friend will, in all probability, have no opportunity of moving his Amendment. Probably he may be told, "We did not consider it necessary on further consideration to put in an Amendment, because we think the Bill meets the point." As I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a distinct pledge to my hon. Friend, who will not have a chance of considering later the Government Amendment, although he may have a chance of voting upon it. As hon. Members know, whilst the time of private Members has been taken away, the time of the Government has been preserved, and my hon. Friend will not have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will put his Amendment in the way suggested the Government will accept it. I did not understand that the Chancellor of
  750
  the Exchequer gave a distinct pledge upon this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] Of course, if hon. Members opposite say he did, I will accept their statement. We only accept the Amendment now subject to this, that if on Report the Government find this Amendment ought not to be put in, and that the principle should be introduced as an Amendment to Clause 10, they reserve the full right to strike out this Amendmtnt.
  Mr. PEEL: I have before me the timetable, and I see that at 7.30 on the allotted day the guillotine falls on the new Clauses and the whole of Part I., which includes sixty Clauses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used an argument for persuading us to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley the fact that the second part was to be dealt with by an Amendment of the Clause.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (d), leave out at end the last word "section" and insert instead thereof the words "part of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON moved at the end of Sub-section (d) to add,
  (e) The Insurance Commissioners shall not withhold their sanction from a scheme on any ground excepting that of inadequacy.
  This is really an important Amendment. Supposing a society is told by the Insurance Commissioners to take the second alternative of reducing the rates of benefit, the Treasury will gain a good deal of money, and it is quite possible that the Insurance Commissioners might get a tip from the Treasury in any particular case to make the approved society take that alternative in order to reduce the deficiency. It is quite clear that in such a case the Treasury would gain, and it might be a very bad thing for the approved society. I think it ought to be the rule of the Insurance Commissioners that they should not be able to refuse their sanction except from the point of view of inadequacy.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think an Amendment of this sort is necessary, and this matter should be left to the Insurance Commissioners. The only ground for suggesting that it is desirable to have this Amendment is that the Government might tempt

  751
  the Insurance Commissioners to act in some way which would be adverse to the interests of the society concerned. I assure the hon. Member that the Insurance Commissioners have to decide these, matters in a proper judicial spirit, and I am surprised that he should suggest that the Treasury might give a tip to the Commissioners to act in some way that was not judicial. Even if that is a good reason it is a very improper way. If there was any necessity to provide against that danger you would have to do it in a much wider Clause. I suggest that it is not necessary. I quite conceive that there may be cases in which the Insurance Commissioners may have to consider whether a proposed scheme does justice between all classes. It is necessary to give them some power, and not confine them strictly to inadequacy. That would not deal with the distribution of benefits in relation to the various classes, and I should have thought it was better to keep the matter as it is. The Insurance Commissioners will be a body who may be relied upon to act properly and in a judicial spirit.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the Attorney-General mean to say he has never heard of the Treasury giving tips to Commissioners? There are, for instance, the Commissioners of Income Tax. Has he never heard of an instruction, not quite official, being given to them either to hasten or retard the collection of the Income Tax? Yet the Commissioners of Income Tax are a statutory body not primarily responsible to the Treasury. If he bases the whole of his argument in answer to my hon. Friend's contention on the ground that such tips will not be given, he rather ignores recent facts. On what ground except that of inadequacy does he suggest the Insurance Commissioners would refuse to sanction any scheme? Surely, if you want to preserve as much freedom to the societies as possible you should allow them to draw up these schemes in a broad spirit, and, as long as they are financially sound, they ought to be allowed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we get on ground where definition is rather difficult when we try and lay down any general principles as to where the Treasury may fitly and properly give hints or instructions to semi-independent Commissioners, more or less responsible to them. There are, of course, a great many instances in connection with the Treasury,
  752
  and even in my own experience in connection with other Departments, where an officer who is distinctly subject in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred in his functions to the directions of a superior in the hundredth case has a judicial discretion with which his superior has no business to interfere. It is sometimes a matter of dispute where that exactly occurs. I remember to have been attacked, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I declined to be responsible for certain instructions which had been drafted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I said the document issued by them was issued in pursuance of a judicial discretion conferred upon them, and that it would be clearly culpable on my part to attempt to prejudice what was a judicial decision. This is exactly one of those cases where the Commissioners would act as judges, nd where they would be precluded from taking a general instruction from the Treasury that of various methods proposed the Treasury preferred one from the other. I think it is very unlikely the Treasury would issue such instructions. If the question arises where if one particular course were taken the Treasury would be safe, and if any one of other courses were taken the Treasury would have to pay, I do not think the amount would be sufficient to make it likely the Treasury would interfere, but I would not like to say, without further consideration of their relation to the Commissioners, that it would be clearly improper for the Treasury to say, other things being equal and there being no special cause why a particular course should be adopted, they would prefer it should not be taken. It is not because I suspect the Treasury or the Commissioners. My inclination is to support the Amendment. It is because I think the less we interfere with the discretion of the societies concerned the better it will be. We are, of course, obliged to interfere with their discretion in a great number of cases, because we are using them as agents of a public benefaction and as the instruments of a public Statute, but surely the less we interfere with their likes and dislikes, and with their authority to manage what are their own affairs in their own way according to their own preferences, the better it will be.
  It is clearly right the Commissioners should be entitled to reject any scheme on the ground of inadequacy, but I think it would be going outside what is necessary to say the Commissioners are also to step in to see that the vote of the majority of

  753
  the society in their opinion does full justice to every member or section of the society. For the great part the Commissioners will have nothing to say at all. It will be left to the society, and I do not see why in this particular instance the discretion should be taken out of the hands of the society and placed in the hands of the Commissioners instead.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think I can make an appeal which will find a response on the benches opposite. Surely there is such a thing as the protection of the rights of the minority. I am sorry there are no Members from Ulster here, because I am sure they would all cheer that. It might easily be possible that schemes would be carried by a majority which in some way or another would do an injustice to a fairly large section, and it does seem to mo the Insurance Commissioners might in that case offer a little advice which would be of great purpose. I am not in favour of increasing the power of permanent officials, but a worse thing than giving power to permanent officials is to instal them in their places, put responsibilities upon them, and then tie them hands and feet. I should have thought this was one of the points where the influence of the Commissioners might have a good effect. In a case where a resolution was carried by a small majority and which did an injustice to the minority, they could ask the society to reconsider the scheme.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I put down a similar Amendment, not because I had any particular suspicion of the Treasury, but on the wider ground my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) adumbrated in the second portion of his speech. I feel it a very great pity to fetter the decision of the approved societies as to what they consider the best way of meeting a deficiency. The whole endeavour not merely of the Government, but of all sides, has been to retain the system of the friendly societies as far as possible, and to retain especially the system of self-government which has done so much for thrift during the last hundred years or so in this country. At the present time all friendly societies have the right themselves to decide without any reference to any Government Department in what particular way a deficiency should be made up. It can either reduce the rate of sick benefit, as suggested in this particular Clause, or it can make a compulsory levy, or it can defer the grant, or it can increase the period to elapse between
  754
  disease and disablement, and so forth. There are five different modes by which a friendly society can get out of its deficiency. For years past they have been able to do this without any complaint on the part of their members, and the friendly societies, and particularly the smaller societies, are in a much better position to determine which of these five courses is the best than any Insurance Commissioners sitting in London. The friendly societies, and particularly those connected with a particular district, know the needs of their members and whether it would be better to make a compulsory levy or reduce the rate of sickness benefit. How, for instance, can the Insurance Commissioners sitting in London know which of those two modes of reducing the deficiency is really desirable in the interests of the people insured in a particular society in a particular district? The only possible reason the State has any right for saying whether these schemes are proper or not is whether they are adequate. The State can only be concerned with the adequacy of a scheme. It cannot possibly be concerned as to whether there shall be a diminution of sick pay or whether there shall be a compulsory levy.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The State does not interfere unless there is no action for six months.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The State, under the provisions of this Clause, has to sanction the scheme which may be passed by the approved society for getting rid of a deficiency. My hon. Friend's Amendment says the State should only be concerned, whether the scheme is adequate or not, from a financial point of view. That is really the only point about which the State ought to be concerned. The members themselves have a right to say in what way the deficiency should be met. The broad principle I think should be that of preserving the rights of friendly societies and of leaving them unfettered in their decision so long only as their decision provides an adequate mode financially of getting rid of the deficiency. Many of us have felt there is a possibility in this Bill of diminishing the old spirit in the friendly society. I am perfectly certain, if this Amendment is not accepted, it will go a long way to diminish those great principles of self-help and brotherly spirit which have made the friendly societies what they are. I want you to leave them as

  755
  unfettered as possible, merely letting the State be responsible for the financial adequacy of any scheme.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The argument of the hon. Member does not really touch the point. The Amendment would have the effect of limiting the Commissioners' discretion in respect of a scheme which can only come in operation if within six months after the declaration of a deficiency the approved society has not done what is necessary. It is a very limited operation. If the approved society will not prevent a scheme, then the Commissioners must do it, and the whole object of the Amendment is to limit the discretion of the Commissioners to a very narrow point.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Sub-section (e) really meets the point of the Amendment, because in cases of dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society in respect of the amount of the deficiency or the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good, the point is to be decided by an independent valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. If an approved society takes exception to the scheme suggested by the Commissioners, they can appeal for an independent valuer, who is to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and he must decide between the society and the Commissioners.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: One may overlook the exact effect of an Amendment in dealing with so complicated a measure. It has happened to us all, and it has happened to the Attorney-General on this Amendment. He will see it is a new Sub-section which my hon. Friend proposes, and it would govern not merely Sub-section (d) to which he seemed to think it was confined, but the whole Section.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite agree; it does not cover that point.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be equally successful with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel).
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It all turns on my not observing the little [e] which is put in. I thought it came at the end of line 25.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it all turns on a little "e" in brackets, and it is on such small matters that such
  756
  great consequences follow. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees assured us that the only point in our argument is adequately provided for by the next Subsection, which provides that if a dispute arises as to the amount of the deficiency or as to the adequacy of the provisions under the scheme, then it should be referred to a valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice to decide. That is a very proper proviso, but what on earth has it to do with the Amendment which we are now discussing. That Amendment does not deal with the amount of the deficiency, but what it states is that the scheme for removing that deficiency should not be rejected by the Commissioners on any account except inadequacy. They would then, if the words were inserted, be entitled to reject it on the ground of inadequacy; and if their verdict were disputed they would go to the valuer, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. That is what happens if the Amendment is accepted. But the hon. Member is asking us to reject the Amendment, and if the Amendment is rejected a scheme may be disapproved by the Commissioners on half-a-dozen grounds not connected either with the amount of the deficiency or with the adequacy of the provision made. And on none of these grounds can there be any appeal to the valuer appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment itself, at the Section, he will see that the next following Sub-section really has no bearing on the particular discussion in which we are now engaged. The whole question before us is, is it necessary in connection with this matter to give to the Commissioners a power which has been hitherto vested in the members of the friendly societies themselves? Is it necessary to leave the last word to the Commissioners as to how the members of a society should make good a deficit; surely we may safely leave that to those who now have the power, namely, the societies. I think we may safely leave it to the societies, and I see no reason to suspect that they would wish or be able to inflict injustice on their members under this Bill any more than they would wish or be able to do so under present circumstances.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The only question to be considered under Sub-section (e) is whether the scheme is adequate for the purpose of making good the deficiency, and the only machinery that is provided under this Sub-section is that a valuer is to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.

  757
  I do not know exactly what that phrase means. I assume it may mean the Lord Chief Justice of England, but it is a phrase quite unknown, and it does not identify anybody in particular, unless it be the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who, I believe, is known as the "Lord Chief Justice." The Lord Chief Justice is to send down a valuer, but may I ask the hon. Member does he really suppose that valuer who may be sent down—
  Mr. CAWLEY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman justified in discussing other Clauses?
  The CHAIRMAN: We have not yet reached paragraph (e).
  Mr. POLLOCK: I was pointing out to the hon. Member, who was arguing as to the adequacy of the safeguards contained in Sub-section (e), he said this Amendment was unnecessary because that Sub-section contains a sufficient safeguard, and it was in consequence of that that I was criticising Sub-section (e). I do not desire to go further on that point. I shall probably have an opportunity of saying a few words on that Sub-section a little later on. The question is whether or not we require some words to be inserted in this Clause 31 in order to prevent the Insurance Commissioners having a wider sphere of criticism for the purpose of saying whether or not a scheme is adequate—adequate to make good the deficiency. The friendly societies have surely earned a title to be trusted in the future. They have done very well in the past. Is it the only question that should be submitted whether or not the proposal they put forward will be sufficient to make good the deficiency. If they have a good scheme, surely that is sufficient. In some localities members may prefer to make a larger contribution; in others they may elect to have restricted benefits. But I do suggest that on this question the advice of the Commissioners should not be paramount. They ought only to be in a position to say that inasmuch as you are able to provide for the deficiency we are satisfied, and you can do it as you please. This provision is important as a safeguard for the freedom of friendly societies. Without it the whole matter may pass into the hands of the Commissioners, and therefore I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. CASSEL: I take every opportunity I can find of endeavouring to point out that at every turn this Bill hampers the freedom and independence of friendly
  758
  societies. This is another instance of that, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Pontefract should take up his present attitude. On the Second Reading of this Bill he made a most damaging criticism on the ground that it was going to entirely undermine and destroy the independence of these societies. Since then a remarkable change appears to have come over him.
  Mr. BOOTH: No, over the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: Over the Bill in some respects, but not in this particular. On this point you certainly say that friendly societies cannot be trusted to deal fairly with their own members. The hon Member for Pontefract said that minorities would be protected, but in the past friendly societies have made their own schemes and their own rules. Does the hon. Member suggest that they are not capable still of making them?
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. CASSEL: Apparently the Government has at last become enamoured of the Veto in the shape of the veto of the Insurance Commissioners on the independence of the friendly societies. Surely this is a case where the discretion of the societies is a matter to be preserved rather than give the discretion to the Insurance Commissioners. The result of the Government proposal is that instead of the friendly societies being independent democratic bodies they will be merely appendages of bureaucratic officials, who will hamper and restrict their movements at every turn. It is on these grounds that I support this Amendment.
  Mr. AMERY: The only difficulty that can really arise is the substantial difference between the interest of the Government as represented by the Insurance Commissioners and those of the friendly societies, the former being naturally in favour of one of the schemes embodied in paragraphs (ii.), (iii.), (iv.), and (v.), the latter in favour of the alternative as provided by paragraph (i.). I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, but I did not get a reply, and the right hon. Gentleman is not in this place to give me one now. What I wish to know is, what alternative there is for the societies to paragraph (i.).
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 239.

  Division No. 358.]

  AYES

  [6.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falle, B. G.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Astor, Waldorf

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldman, C. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Salter, Artnur Clavell

  Boyle, W. L. (Norwich, Mid)

  Hills, J. W.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Butcher, John George

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Jowett, F. W.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cater, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cave, George

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lansbury, George

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

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

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Winterton, Earl

  Clyde, James Avon

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Younger, Sir George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mildmay Francis Bingham

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Mr. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Addison, Dr. Christoper

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Alden, Percy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gulland, John William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hackett, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Barnes, George N.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harwood, George

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Donelan, Captain Anthony Charles

  Hayward, Evan

  Brace, William

  Doris, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hinds, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Falconer, James

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Cameron, Robert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  John, Edward Thomas

  Carr Gomm, H. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Johnson, William

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

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  760

  761

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Rowlands, James

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sheehy, David

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherce)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Snowden, Philip

  Leach, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Grady, James

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Palmer, Godrey Mark

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wardie, George J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Waring, Walter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

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

  Watt, Henry A.

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

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

  Webb, H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Radford, George Heynes

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Mason, D. M. (Coventry)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Robinson, Sidney

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Munro, Robert

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the following new paragraph:—
  "(e) The Insurance Commissioners, after taking over the administration of the affairs of any society or branch, shall, within a reasonable time, not exceeding three years, make arrangements for the restoration to the society or branch of its powers of self-government, or, failing that, for the transfer of the members of the society or branch, being insured persons, to other approved societies or branches or to the Post Office fund."
  The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Insurance Commissioners shall not continue to keep in their own hands the administration of such societies as fail to make reasonable schemes. Considering the enormously wide judicial powers given to the Insurance Commissioners, it is very undesirable that they should also have wide administrative powers and be competitors with other societies in administering the Bill or be identified with any one particular policy of administration.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It was never intended by the Government that the Insurance Commissioners should indefinitely carry on the affairs of such a society. I agree it is well to have some limitation imposed in the Bill itself. I think the proposal of the hon. Member is an improvement upon this particular Clause, and on behalf of the Government I shall accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) are consequential.
  Mr. FORSTER: Is the second one consequential? The hon. Member wants to bring in the Institute of Actuaries.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is consequential. On the preceding Clause yesterday we settled the question of valuer or actuary. The hon. Member himself informed me that the second Amendment was consequential.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Surely this is quite a different matter. The question under this Clause is whether the Lord Chief Justice is to appoint a valuer. He may appoint a valuer, and the question is, Who are to submit names to him for that purpose, and the hon. Member for Salisbury proposes that the persons who shall recommend the selection shall be those named in the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Salisbury himself asked me not to call upon him to move it, and we arranged that the matter was settled.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Shall I be in order in moving it myself?
  The CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I accept what you say, Sir, but I understood that the hon. Member for Salisbury intended to be in his place to raise the point.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Salisbury was good enough to come to my room and go through his Amendments with me, and in his presence I marked this Amendment as one that was not going to be moved. My view, as I told him then, was that the second Amendment was out of order.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it be possible to move the omission of paragraph (e)?
  Mr. POLLOCK: Can I move to omit paragraph (e)?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon Member can certainly move to leave out that paragraph, but he will not be able to go back on the matter we decided yesterday.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (e).
  This Bill proposes to establish a system under which any difficulties, disputes, or questions which arise between the Insurance Commissioners and a society who may feel that they have not been fairly dealt with shall be laid to rest. This is one of the Clauses that looks so useful, but which in practice is of no use whatever. The dispute or question is to be submitted to an independent valuer who shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. How is that valuer to make his decision? To whom is he to make it? Under what rules is the inquiry to take place, and who is to pay the cost of it? It is a very easy thing to put in a Bill a provision that the Lord Chief
  764
  Justice shall select a valuer to go down to settle a dispute, but when the valuer gets down, he wants to know what is the dispute. What power has he got to deal with the matter or to call persons before him to inquire into it? And when he has made a decision, does he make a decision or a report? All these questions immediately arise as soon as the Clause says that the Lord Chief Justice is to send for a valuer. He will send for a valuer and say he is to settle the dispute, but the valuer will say: "Who is going to pay me? To whom am I to report? What powers have I got?" All these matters are left out. If we are to have a reasonable method of settling these disputes a good deal more must be provided than is in the Clause. May I call attention to another curious thing? The paragraph refers to "the Lord Chief Justice." There is no person who holds that office except the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who under the Judicature Act, 1877, is called the Lord Chief Justice. In all Statutes, if you wish to refer to the Lord Chief Justice in England, you say the Lord Chief Justice of England, which is his proper title. The curious thing is that the Government, whether by a slip or not, I do not know, have referred to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland as the person who is to select a valuer. The Bill applies to Ireland, Scotland, and England. Is the intention of this Clause that the Lord Chief Justice of England shall send down a valuer, or do you mean that the highest judge in each country shall determine and select him? As this Clause stands it is incomplete. It does not provide a code or a scheme, it does not provide for costs, and does not accurately mention the authority who is to select the valuer. I remember a protest once being made by the late Lord Coleridge, who was addressed as Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, and he complained that although there was an official known as the Lord Chief Justice of England, and although there was a person called Lord Coleridge, there was no such person as Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. When the Government bring forward a Clause under which they propose that the Lord Chief Justice is to settle these valuers, I ask whom they mean and under what rules he is to make his selection, at whose cost and with what powers the valuer is going to proceed? Is he a judicial officer. When he has made his decision, what validity is it to hold, and is it merely a report or what not? This requires development, and I

  765
  ask the Attorney-General to explain what his scheme is, in the hope that we may have a real scheme and not a Clause which apparently offers much, but which those persons who are conversant with the practice which is necessary under these Clauses know really means nothing and offers a scheme which is entirely illusory.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has really exercised his ingenuity in order to put some point which he has in his mind in reference to this paragraph, and has administered what is known to lawyers as a series of interrogatories. He has set to work to criticise two points. The first is the use of the term Lord Chief Justice, and the second is that the Clause does not state how the decision is to be given. In regard to the first, he seems to be, in doubt as to who is the person to designate the particular valuer, and he says there is nothing to show whether it is intended to apply to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, or even he thought it did apply to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. If he had looked a little further into the Bill he would have found that the term is defined both in Clause 58 and Clause 59. In Clause 58 it is said who the Lord Chief Justice is with reference to Scotland, and in Clause 59 who the Lord Chief Justice is with reference to Ireland, so that there is not very much room left for doubt. There is only one other Lord Chief Justice that I know who will come within this Bill, and I do not think that even the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity would suggest that where you have it explained that in Scotland it is the Lord President and the Court of Session, and where you have the Lord Chief Justice applied to Ireland it means the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, that there is much ground for saying Lord Chief Justice would mean otherwise than the Lord Chief Justice of England. The other point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised is that there is no provision as to what is to happen.
  Mr. POLLOCK: As to the revision of costs. The Attorney-General will appreciate that my criticism as to the name was intended only to introduce the discussion, but the really serious question is as to the costs and the rules under which it is to be conducted.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will address myself to the serious question. It is said in the Bill that the question in dispute shall be decided by an independent judge. It
  766
  is not intended to have here an inquiry in the nature of a legal inquiry. The point of it is, as I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, that we frequently have decisions of this kind which have to be given by a valuer. It is by no means uncommon to say that these points shall be decided by a valuer, and I have no doubt that on many occasions the hon. and learned Gentleman himself has agreed that some particular point shall be-decided by an expert. This is only that an independent valuer shall be selected by the Lord Chief Justice. It may be necessary to introduce some arrangement in regard to it.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Who will pay the valuer?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That will have to be decided.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: Will he make it a rule of court under the Arbitration Act?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Does the hon. Gentleman mean would the valuer make it a rule of court? That is just exactly one of the things which will be dealt with by the regulations. The whole scheme of this Clause is to take care that you shall have some person who shall decide what is going to happen in case there is a dispute between the society and the Commissioners. With reference to the matters of detail which are left over, I agree that it is desirable to introduce some regulation and, of course, we shall have that in the Bill, either in a subsequent Clause or it may be necessary on Report. We only want regulations of the simplest kind for the purpose of enabling him to give that decision when the matter is left to him.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain whether words can be introduced on Report which will give power to fix a charge on the society. I rather think it must be done in Committee.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it not already provided for in Clause 41?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I pointed out that it would either come under the regulations in subsequent Clauses or, if not, that we should have to consider how it could be done.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If these important matters of costs and so on are not capable of being dealt with by the regulations referred to in the Bill, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an undertaking

  767
  that he will put down at a later stage in Committee—we shall not have much time on Report—the necessary provision to meet this case?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have looked at Clause 41, and it has nothing whatever to do with this Clause. No regulations in regard to this matter could be made under it, and it must be dealt with, I think, in Committee, because it could not be settled by leaving out this paragraph.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Is there any power under this Bill as it stands to make regulations dealing with this Clause, and how do the Government intend to pay the costs of these valuations?
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is it intended that the person who is to hold the inquiry is to have power to take evidence on oath?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That question does not arise under this particular paragraph. There are two Clauses which deal with regulations, and one gives very wide powers—Clause 57. The regulations will come in one of those Clauses or will be introduced in Committee.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Clause 57 is one which cannot be amended in Committee. There is a Clause which takes power to make regulations for a variety of different matters. That is Clause 67. It is desirable that in the Committee stage any regulations which involve the raising of money should be made applicable to this part of the Bill, as well by an Amendment to the latter part of the first part of the Bill. That appears to cover the point which is at present being raised. The difficulty might thus be met and the Committee might have an opportunity of dealing with it at this stage and before it comes to Report. Might I ask a further question? In what way is it intended that this Clause shall be enforced, because the enforcing of the Clause will require statutory power altogether apart from the question of cost, and altogether apart from the machinery by which the valuation is to be arrived at. Surely if the Sub-section is to be effective there must be something which will give it effective force in any proceedings which may be instituted upon it. For that reason also I think the Clause might be reconsidered at some stage before Report.
  Colonel GREIG: Clause 48 would cover this if some words were introduced in the final Sub-section. Clause 48 says:
  "The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations for any of the purposes for which regulations may be made under this part of this Act, or the Schedules therein referred to, and for prescribing anything which under this Act or any such Schedules is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this Act into effect, and any regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Surely it cannot, be contended that if a dispute should arise between a society and the Commissioners they should themselves frame the rules. I should still like to know if this is to be in the nature of a judicial inquiry before which evidence is taken as before a Royal Commission, or is it to be some sort of private inquiry of his own which the valuer is to conduct by investigating the books?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Clause provides that "Any question or dispute arising between the Insurance Commissioners and the society … shall be decided by an independent valuer …." He will decide on the case which is put before him. The whole point will be in respect of the amount of the deficiency, or as to the adequacy of any scheme proposed for making it good. These are the only questions which will come before the valuer. No one will contemplate anything in the nature of a lawsuit, or proceedings in a court of justice to decide these questions.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There might be great questions arising as to how the deficiency has arisen.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The discussion we have had on the Clause seems to have served some purpose. The Attorney-General agrees that regulations will be necessary, and that at some time during the Committee stage he will have to indicate how these regulations are to be made and what body is to make them. These regulations, I understand, would indicate how the cost of the inquiry is to be borne. The Attorney-General has, therefore, quite candidly admitted that the Clause as it stands is really incomplete. Provision has to be made somewhere or other for carrying it into effect. Perhaps that is a more happy and accurate way of putting it. He will not be surprised that some of us have not been able to find where provision is made for carrying it into effect. After the statement

  769
  of the Attorney-General, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let hon. Members opposite understand that if they do not get a working scheme hereafter, and that the provision made is wholly illusive, it is because irritation is shown when these matters are discussed by persons who have had experience and who know the importance of having proper provision made for carrying these arrangements into effect. I think the observations of the Attorney-General have amply justified the attitude taken up by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (e), to insert the words "in accordance with regulations to be made in manner hereinafter provided."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think these words would come in very well there. The Noble Lord proposes that the matter is to be decided by the valuer "in accordance with regulations to be made in manner hereinafter provided." That would be much too narrow. I think the Noble Lord might leave this, and he may depend upon it that we will indicate a Clause under which regulations can be made for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. We will look at two or three of the Clauses which have been mentioned by hon. Members, and if they do not meet the purpose, we will have to introduce amending words.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to make a remark in regard to what has fallen from the Attorney-General. These Clauses which have been mentioned contemplate regulations which are to be made by the Insurance Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member below the Gangway has pointed out that we cannot allow the Commissioners to make regulations as to who is to pay the cost in connection with a dispute in which they are engaged, and to which they are parties. That must be done by some other authority.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have carefully preserved the right to insert some other words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (g), after the word "society" ["Any member of the society being an insured person"] to insert the words "or branch."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Amendment proposed: In paragraph (g), after the word "society" ["transferred to another society"], to insert the words "or to another branch of the same society."
  Mr. HILLS: I think we want some additional words there to meet the point raised last night.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: We want the words "or any."
  Mr. HILLS: I agree. I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment after the word "same," to insert the words "or any."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move, in paragraph (g), after the word "society" in the Amendment just agreed to, to insert the words "after the date as at which the valuation was made, and." The object of the Amendment is to prevent a man who leaves a society before a deficiency has been declared, being obliged to carry on indefinitely a liability in connection with a deficiency, after he joins another society. As the Clause now stands it would appear that there is no limit as to the time he would be liable to pay a levy to make good the deficiency. That is to say, if a man leaves a society to-day and five years hence a deficiency arises, he would be liable to pay a levy under the terms of this Sub-section as I read it. That, of course, is not the intention. If the words I propose do not meet the case, some other words should be found. I think the intention of the Amendment will be clear to the Attorney-General, namely, that a man should not be liable to pay a levy unless he was in the society at the time the deficiency was declared. If you do not add these words, anybody who leaves a society before a deficiency is declared will be liable for the levy.
  Mr. J. WARD: Why should he?
  Mr. BAIRD: It may be five or ten years after he leaves a society that the levy is made. There must be something in this Amendment when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent—a very rare occurrence. I hope I shall be able to persuade the Attorney-General to agree with me as to the necessity of the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the principle and do what I want done in this

  771
  matter, I would be very glad to adopt any alteration in the Amendment he might suggest.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My difficulty about the words proposed by the hon. Member is that they do not absolutely carry out his intention. I admit that some words might be usefully inserted, but I do not think we can take these words. It is not our desire, and it is not the intention of the Bill, to make a person liable indefinitely, but I do not think you can fix the date as that at which the valuation was made as the limit. We must find some other date to fix.
  Mr. BOOTH: If the hon. Member wishes to readjust it so as to insure the members of the society who have heaped up the liability shall take a part in the levy, I am entirely with him.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we are all agreed with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, namely, that people who are not really responsible should not, long years after they have left the society, find themselves charged because the society of which they once were members was in arrear. I feel it is a little difficult, as it always is, to find exact words to carry out an idea which commends itself to all quarters of the House. I venture to suggest that possibly the scheme of the Bill docs provide a measure of time for these members to be responsible. These valuations have to take place every three years. Surely when you take a valuation to-day and find that the society is deficient you ought not to go back beyond the last valuation at a time when the society was sound. If the society was unsound at the previous valuation, of course, a levy would then have been made. It seems to me that that is a way out of the difficulty, and that we should not carry the charge back beyond the period of the previous valuation.
  Sir RUFUS ISSACS: That is a suggestion which I would be very glad to accept, but I cannot accept it now. It seems to me that there are difficulties even in carrying that out, but I will consider it.
  Mr. BAIRD: Obviously we will never get into watertight compartments. We cannot secure that a man shall not be liable for a levy for which he has no responsibility, but it is desirable to tighten up the Clause in some way, to secure that a man's
  772
  liability shall not be so wide as it is under the Bill. I hope the learned Attorney-General will not include this in the Clauses which are to be dealt with on the report, as there is such an awful number of these to be settled then. We are always met by the Government with the reply that the idea is a very good one, and will be dealt with on Report. If the learned Attorney-General will find words to put in now, I hope he will do so.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the point which he has raised. It is a very useful point, and shall be very carefully considered in the light of the observations which have been made. But I have the greatest objection to drafting words upon an Amendment which we have not seen. It affords a very useful peg on which to hang a discussion which leads to something in the end, but this is by no means an easy matter, and requires careful consideration, having regard to all the provisions in the Bill. The House is agreed on it, and it is only a question of finding what is the exact point at which you are to state in the Bill where the line is to be drawn. I would suggest to the Committee that they should be satisfied with that, as the Amendment has never been on the Paper, and we have never heard it until now.
  Mr. BUTCHER: As we may not have any opportunity whatever of discussing this point later on, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to indicate at what time a member should be allowed to go out? Should he be allowed to go out before the deficiency is declared or at some subsequent time? Where is the line to be drawn?
  Mr. BAIRD: I quite understand the learned Attorney-General's reluctance to accept an Amendment which he has not even seen, but he cannot complain of the Amendment not having been put down in time, as the Bill is being rushed through at such a rate. From the manner in which he has met this point I am quite prepared to leave it in his hands on the distinct understanding that words will be put in which will cover it.
  Mr. CASSEL: I would ask the Attorney-General, in dealing with this matter, not to fix the time at too long a period, because otherwise it will be a very difficult thing for societies. They will have to keep a special list. Under the Companies Acts the time is only one year, and a special list has to be kept of past members who

  773
  are liable to make good deficiencies. In these societies it would really be a difficult thing to trace all the past members, more particularly over a long period of years.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to propose, in Sub-section (2), after the word "thereto," to insert the words "and a member subject to a diminution of benefits by virtue of any such scheme may, with the consent of the society, acquire a right to undiminished benefits."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give in a word or two an explanation of the exact effect of this Amendment?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The whole point of the Amendment is to apply to cases where a deficiency is met by reduction of benefits. It was the intention of the Clause to give effect to this provision, and it was only by inadvertence that these words were dropped out. Anybody will see that they ought to have been inserted, and they are being inserted now merely to carry out what is the intention of the Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (2) to add the words "Nothing in this or the preceding Section shall affect any funds of the society or branch other than those under this Part of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 31, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Before we part with this Clause I want to make an appeal to the Government with regard to a question which arises under Sub-clause (a), Sub-section (1) of the Clause. I intended to put in a manuscript Amendment to deal with this matter, but as some other Amendments were ruled out of order I was two or three seconds late. Under the Bill in its present form the only circumstance in which a society may refuse to make good a deficiency of one of its branches out of a surplus is the maladministration of a branch. Another point that may arise is maladministration on the part of the local authority. It is quite possible, as pointed out by the Government in Clause 46, which relates to excessive sickness in a locality, that a very serious difficulty may be thrown upon a local society owing to bad housing and sanitary conditions over which the
  774
  local sanitary authority has supervision and control. Bearing in mind that the local health committee is to consist as to one-third of its members of the local sanitary authority it is not reasonable to say that in the case of a healthy society carrying on its business properly in a healthy district, where the housing and sanitary conditions are attended to, the surplus produced by the good management of such societies should go to make the deficiency due to in-sanitary conditions caused by the laxity on the part of a sanitary authority, especially bearing in mind that the local sanitary authority is going to have a voice in the affairs of the local health committee, and may, if necessary, apply for an inquiry either to the Home Secretary or the President of the Local Government Board, and as a result of such inquiry may throw the cost of making good these local defects upon either the authority or upon the individual property owners who may be proved to be at fault in such respects.
  Surely it is only fair to those who carry on their local affairs properly and attend to sanitary matters in their districts that the local societies should not have their surplus applied in order to remedy defects in a district when the local sanitary authority it not doing its duty properly. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it possible to incorporate into this Clause that it shall be possible for a society to make good the deficiency of a branch in a locality where the deficiency is not due to maladministration of the branch, but is due to maladministration of the local sanitary authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that he has particularly provided in Clause 46 against such conditions prevailing, and has given very large powers to the local sanitary authority, by means of applications to Government Departments, for inquiries to deal with these matters. I would appeal to him that on Report he should introduce as a second alternative into this proviso maladministration on the part of the local sanitary authority as well as maladministration on the part of the branch in question.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider this suggestion very carefully before he adopts it, because it seems to me hardly fair to the members of a society or of a particular branch to be mulcted because of the default of the sanitary authority. That is really what the suggestion comes to. It is not the fault of the members of the

  775
  branch that because the sanitary authority of the district is not up to the mark that therefore the deficiency should not be met. I do not often differ from my hon. Friend on these points, but I must say that I think this Amendment would be a mistake.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAROLD CAWLEY: If there should be laxity in any locality, the local authority of course, has to make good the deficiency in the branch. Therefore, there is no deficiency of the branch which the society, as a whole, will have to continue. When this altered Clause for sickness comes into effect there will be no deficiency at all, because it will be made good by the local authority.
  Mr. AMERY: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the point that in reality, of the alternatives offered to the society to meet a deficiency, the only way in which they can get the full two-ninths from the State is if they make a compulsory levy. I do think that brings out the effect of the two-ninths, and I should like an answer to the question whether there is any real freedom of choice on the part of the society under the Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in regard to the question of the two-ninths, because that is the amount which they distribute. If they distribute it wastefully they will have to pay out two-ninths in the way of benefit. I have considered the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, and for the moment I cannot see where it arises, because if they reduce the benefit it means that the State, distributing the two-ninths, is paying in effect before the deficiency has arisen. Supposing there is a deficiency of £10,000 owing to their having distributed more money than they have actually had, the State has already contributed its amount. Therefore, the levy will go in making up the deficiency, and not to paying benefit.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not quite appreciated the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Amery), who has made a most interesting contribution to the Debate. As I understand my hon. Friend's point it is this, that, nominally, the society in a deficiency has a great choice of methods for making up that deficiency But there is one method alone which reduces the
  776
  amount which its Members get from the State. Therefore, as my hon. Friend points out, the societies will always choose one of the other methods—that is to say, instead of reducing the benefits, and thereby reducing the contribution which the State make they will always choose some other alternative. I think it conceivable that sometimes they will withstand the attraction of the full subsidy of the State, and refer to take the reduced benefits even if by doing that they obtain a reduced subsidy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his answer, mentioned one point to which I think it is worth while giving a moment's reflection in order that we may consider what ought to be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that anyway the societies were going to have the full amount of money that they ought to have. That is quite true, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the society which was maladministered might easily have more than its share. That had not occurred to me before, and I owe it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will put it very shortly, and I would like him to consider it. A deficiency arises, the right hon. Gentleman said, because the society has paid too large benefits in one shape or another. To those benefits the State has paid two-ninths, and, if the society pays larger benefits than it ought, necessarily the State has to pay a higher subsidy. While the society is getting into a deficiency, not only is it spending more of its own money than it ought, but it is expending a larger subsidy from the State than it ought, because the State subsidy is in proportion to the benefits paid. We then come to the stage at which the society has to make good the deficiency, but it is never made good to the State unless the society chooses to reduce the benefits during the next triennial period. In that case the balance would be restored. That is the point which was forced upon me or shown to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I thought it worth while to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it, and let him have an opportunity of considering it before he parts with it.
  Mr. AMERY: May I point out that if the society makes an excessive levy, a levy more than is absolutely necessary for the deficiency, then it will again take more from the State? I think it does bring out the two-ninths method of contribution to be very unsatisfactory indeed.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to Deposit Contributors.)
  (1) Until Parliament otherwise determines, the following provisions shall apply in the case of insured persons (in this Act referred to as deposit contributors), who being employed contributors, have not joined an approved society within the prescribed time, or who, having been members of an approved society, have been expelled therefrom and have not joined another approved society:—

  (a) Contributions by or in respect of a deposit contributor shall be credited to a special fund to be called the Post Office fund:

  (b) The sums required for the payment of any sickness, disablement, or maternity benefit payable to a deposit contributor, except so far as they are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, shall be paid out of the money standing to his credit in the Post Office fund, and his right to benefits under this Part of this Act shall be suspended on the sums standing to his credit in that fund being exhausted, except that his right to medical benefit and sanatorium benefit shall continue until the expiration of the then current year:

  (c) A deposit contributor shall not be entitled to sickness benefit unless at least fifty-two weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of him:

  (d) Such sum as may be prescribed shall in each year be payable in respect of each deposit contributor towards the expenses incurred by the local health committee in the administration of benefits:

  (e) Such sum as the local health committee may, with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners, determine shall in each year be payable in respect of each deposit contributor for the purposes of the cost of medical benefit:

  (f) The sums payable in respect of a deposit contributor for the purposes of medical benefit and sanatorium benefit, and towards the expenses of administration, shall, except so far as they are payable out of
  778
  moneys provided by Parliament, be deducted at the commencement of each year from the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund:

  (g) The amount standing in the Post Office fund to the credit of any deposit contributor shall, upon his dying, be forfeited.

  (2) A valuation of the Post Office fund shall be made by a valuer to be appointed by the Treasury at the expiration of every three years dating from the commencement of this Act, or at such other times as the Insurance Commissioners may appoint, and if the valuer certifies that the fund shows a disposable surplus the Insurance Commissioners may carry the surplus to the credits of the deposit contributors in proportion to the number of contributions paid by, or in respect of, them respectively:
  Provided that if the local health committee for any county or county borough in which more than 20 per cent. of the insured persons resident in the county or county borough are deposit contributors makes an application for the purpose, the Insurance Commissioners shall make provision—

  (a) for crediting and debiting to a separate account the sums to be credited or debited under this Part of this Act in respect of deposit contributors resident in the county or county borough; and

  (b) for a separate valuation being made of such account and for distributing any surplus found on such valuation to be disposable amongst the depositors resident in the county or county borough, who shall not be entitled to participate in any distribution of any surplus in the general Post Office fund.

  The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be convenient to the Committee if I rule on one or two points before approaching this Clause. It was understood yesterday that if possible an opportunity should be found for a wide Debate on an early Amendment to this Clause. I think that opportunity offers on the Amendment which has no name to it and which appears third on the Paper. What I would suggest in the interests of the Committee is that we should have a Debate on that Amendment which would cover the general scheme laid down by the Clause of the Bill and also any alternative which hon. Members have to propose to that scheme. Then, later on,

  779
  when that general Debate is concluded, we should not re-argue these various schemes, but whatever Member has one put forward on the Notice Paper, it could, with a brief explanatory speech, be put before the Committee for decision. I think that would leave the main part of the time for the discussion, which I understand the Committee desire, and will leave the Committee to vote and decide the form in which it will leave the Clause in the Bill. If it is agreeable, I propose to allow that general discussion to be taken on the Amendment, to leave out "until Parliament otherwise determines," in order to insert the words "First day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
  Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Until," to insert the words, "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
  That is the Amendment which I handed in, and which I thought would bear my name. It is common ground between Members on both sides of the House that in the consideration of Clause 32 we are really approaching the consideration of what is the weakest point, in the general estimation, of this particular scheme of insurance. There are those who have suggested that this Clause 32 is the great blot on the Bill. I am not prepared to adopt that phrase, because the phrase "great blot" implies responsibility and blame to the framers of the Bill, which I do not think can be legitimately imputed to them. But it is certainly the part of the measure which causes the most misgiving to those of us who welcome wholeheartedly the spirit of this Bill, and who believe it, in its main object, to be probably the most notable, and, as I sincerely believe, the most far-reaching contribution to social amelioration and to the improvement of the quality of national life, that this generation has seen. Those of us on this side of the House, who have had occasion from time to time to criticise adversely certain parts of the Bill, have not done so in any unfriendly spirit, or from any lack of appreciation of the splendid benefits, which, in its main proposals, it confers upon many millions of our fellow citizens. But we have ventured to criticise it in certain of its provisions because we have felt that the benefits of the Bill were not of equal advantage to all, and that those provisions give least to those who in many respects have a claim to most at the hands of this Parliament and
  780
  at the hands of the State. But I would venture to suggest that this is not really the fault of the Bill; it is really the price that must be paid for a wide measure of constructive social reform. I respectfully submit that it is one of the tragedies connected with social reform to-day that it must sometimes, while benefitting the many, appear to make life harder for the few.
  In some cases our social legislation actully does make life very much harder for the few. I might quote, for example, the Labour Exchanges Act, and the Workmen's Compensation Act, as instances of the fact that while doing something to benefit the many you are bound to appear, at least, to make life harder for the few, I think it is really due to the fact that there are two classes of people whom this House always has to keep in view in any attempt at legislative social reform. There is that class, happily overwhelmingly the largest class, who can be effectively helped by means of schemes such as this. There is the other class, happily an immeasurably smaller class, who cannot be effectively helped by social reform and whose lot and conditions of life can only be alleviated. This Bill, and particularly its main provisions, is primarily concerned with those who can be effectively helped, those whom a little kindly succour or help may keep at the top, or near the top, of the industrial classes, those who can be prevented from sinking lower and lower and eventually recruiting the ranks of the most destitute, the weakest and the most helpless class of the community. For this particular class the Bill unquestionably offers splendid benefits, but for the rest, those who cannot be effectively helped, whose lot can only be alleviated, the benefits offered by this Bill are indisputably scanty and inadequate. I am happy to think that in the construction of this scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not altogether ignore this second class, and he certainly has not left them out of account in the provision of his benefits, but in comparison with the benefits that are offered to the more efficient and the more regularly employed and the more highly paid industrial workers, they are certainly wholly inadequate and extremely scanty and small.
  What, as a matter of fact, is offered under this Clause to those whom I have summed up in the second category? Under the Bill as it stands, and under the Clause as it stands, any employed person who becomes a deposit contributor shares in

  781
  the ordinary benefits provided under the Bill. That is to say, he receives sickness benefit, he receives maternity benefit, and he receives disablement and other benefits. But he receives those benefits to an extent and during a period of time that are strictly determined by the amount of funds standing to his credit in the Post Office account. In one particular instance there is an exception. In regard to sanatorium benefits and medical benefits, he does receive under the Bill, or may receive, a somewhat larger benefit than is represented by the amount standing to his credit, because it is provided in this Clause that he may receive sanatorium benefits and medical benefit up to the end of the current year. But in the strict sense the deposit contributor under this Bill is not an insured person at all. He does not share in any pooled fund. He has none of the ordinary advantages of association with his fellows. He has no special consideration shown to him in regard to arrears, and especially in regard to arrears due to unemployment. He stands in a class by itself, in a position of complete isolation from his fellow-depositors, and he is treated strictly and solely on a cash basis. That which he pays in and that which others pay in in respect of him, he has, and he has nothing more. Indeed, in one very important respect, important because of its effect, but not important from the point of view of sense of proportion—in one important respect the deposit contributor suffers, and gets less than he actually pays in, because, under paragraph (g) of this Clause, it is provided, for some inexplicable reason, that should a deposit contributor leave a surplus standing to his credit in the Post Office Fund the surplus is forfeited, and does not go to his next-of-kin and relatives. I venture to suggest, in passing, that that paragraph cannot, I hope, continue to be a feature of this Bill when it passes through Committee.
  I am far from suggesting to-night that there are no advantages for the deposit contributor under this scheme. As a matter of fact, the deposit contributory arrangement is in certain respects a generous arrangement. The deposit contributor has his contributions enlarged by the contributions of the employer and of the State. In that respect, therefore, the deposit contributory arrangement is a very great improvement upon the ordinary Post Office Savings Bank account, but my quarrel with the Clause as it stands is this—that the benefits conferred under this deposit contributory
  782
  principle do not suffice for the special needs of the particular classes who must be included in the ranks of the deposit contributors. If the deposit contributor represented the average life of the community and the average liability to sickness and disablement, then there would be a good deal to be said for the advantages under the Post Office deposit contributory scheme. We all know, as a matter of fact, that those who will be included and who will be grouped under the category of deposit contributors, represent not average lives, but the worst lives and the most heavily handicapped lives in the community. They represent a class of persons who are peculiarly and quite exceptionally liable to a high rate of sickness, and who live precarious lives, and who are peculiarly liable to the ills of permanent disablement. The real effect of the scheme is seen if one attempts to consider and to conjecture who are the people who will be included in the ranks of the deposit contributors. It is extremely difficult to say who they will be. We have very little data to go upon; we have only general, social observations, and the results of general investigations of social facts to guide us.
  It is perfectly impossible to say with any approach to exactitude, who are the classes which will be represented by the Post Office depositors, but I think we may for the purpose of this discussion sum them up briefly into two or three particular classes. There will be, in the first place, the physically bad life, the man or woman who is rejected on the grounds of health by the ordinary approved friendly society, and who may be rejected on the ground of health and physical unfitness by the industrial and other societies which are to be brought in under the scope of this Bill, and who therefore will be forced, under the mere compulsion of physical disability, into the ranks of the deposit contributors. There will then be another broad class, and it is impossible to say how numerous this second class will be, of what I may call the morally bad life, the class of thriftless person, the class of people whose characters and local reputation are against them, and keep them out of membership of the friendly societies. I think we may say that to a greater or less extent there will be a third class made up of the casual worker, the casual labourer whose employment is always precarious, and which includes in its ranks many women whose occupations are precarious and casual. All those casual

  783
  workers will, I assume, inevitably be forced into the ranks of the deposit contributors. I suppose there may be a fourth class, though not very numerous, and that is the class of person who has failed to join a friendly society within the specified time, and who will find that there is a way out of the difficulty by joining the Post Office fund. So far as the last class is concerned, a class that may be represented to a very large extent by domestic servants, they represent average lives, and the deposit contributory scheme might have certain advantages for them, advantages sufficient to suffice for their particular needs.
  But for the rest, the first three classes, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who has oven a superficial knowledge of social facts that the benefits of this deposit contributory scheme fall very far short of what they really need if they are to be succoured and effectively helped. They are not average lives; they are persons who suffer in an exceptional way, and are exceptionally liable to sickness and disablement. For them, this Clause absolutely gives no security in times of prolonged sickness, and offers absolutely nothing in the way of an invalidity pension in case of permanent disablement. I am bound to say, and I desire to say this with all possible emphasis, that from the very first introduction of this Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself fully alive to the drawbacks of the proposals included in this Clause. He has very freely avowed the limitations of the Post Office contributor proposals, and he may very fairly ask some of us to-night how we propose to improve the situation for those who will be forced into the Post Office scheme. Speaking for myself, I desire to say in the fullest and frankest way that I do not see that you can possibly do much more for these people on the present basis of the Bill. To say this is not necessarily to indict the basis of the Bill. On the whole I am inclined to think after careful consideration that the basis is not merely the best, but the only practicable basis for a national insurance scheme of these dimensions, but I desire frankly to say, speaking for myself, that I see no possibility of materially improving the conditions of these workers under the basis of the Bill as it now stands.
  I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have chosen an altogether different basis. He might have started out by taking no account of the
  784
  artisans and of the more regularly employed and better-paid workers, and he might entirely have ignored the existing friendly societies, and he might have set up under a heavy State subsidy special societies to meet the needs of this particular class. That was an alternative which, I am bound to say, appealed to me very strongly when I first started to consider the question. But the more I have considered the point, the more it has seemed to me that at was not a practicable alternative in the actual existing circumstances of the case. What would have happened if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had concentrated on this particular class and had attempted to establish under a heavy State subsidy special societies for their benefit? He would instantly have set up a very dangerous rivalry to the existing friendly societies, and he would have incurred their unmistakable and uncompromising hostility. Moreover, he would have found himself face to face with an almost insoluble difficulty as to the employer's contribution. It is perfectly impossible in the nature of things to exact an employer's contribution on behalf of a certain portion of the population and to fail to exact contributions in connection with the other and more prosperous portions of the working classes. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that any responsible Minister of the Treasury should at that Table propose to hand over to the friendly societies, without security, safeguards, or regulations, contributions taken compulsorily from the employer and the taxpayer.
  Moreover, I think that by attempting to set up separate societies for this particular class the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have concentrated the energies and resources of the State upon the most urgently needy but not necessarily the most important class of workers in the community. Everyone who has studied social questions is alive to the very plausible danger of addressing oneself to an urgent need and forgetting the larger and more permanent need of the rest of the community. Whilst it is much to help to lift up partially the man who is at the bottom, it is infinitely more to keep at the top those who are already there. But my strongest objection to this alternative is that by setting up special societies for this particular class you will have begged the whole question whether or not these particular people are insurable persons, whether their needs can be dealt with in an insurance scheme, or whether, as I

  785
  believe, to deal with their case and their needs you will not have to use entirely other machinery and other agencies altogether. I know that in arguing this I am opposing myself to the view very strongly held by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and other Members opposite. The hon. Member for Colchester has put down certain Amendments, and, as far as I can gather, he would propose to set up separate and special societies under the local health committees with a heavier State subsidy and with reduced benefits for those who participate in the scheme.
  Mr. FORSTER: I would point out, in the absence of my hon. Friend, that we cannot accept that as a proper description of his scheme.
  Mr. SHERWELL: It was obviously a summarised description, but I believe that it is true in fact, so far as the Amendments on the Paper are concerned. The hon. Member may have other Amendments in view that do not appear on the printed Orders of the Day. I will leave it with this remark. I should not refuse to support any proposal for an increased grant from the State in the interests of this particular class of persons if I were persuaded that they could be most effectively helped in that particular way. Nor should I press the objection against any such proposal, supposing it were placed before the Committee, that from an administrative point of view it would be extremely difficult. What seems to me to be the radical defect of every proposal for separate machinery and a separate class of society, is that by setting up a separate class of society you do really beg the vital question whether or not these people, who are to be included in the deposit contributor class, are really an insurable class. I hold that they are not. In connection with these persons you are brought up against that ultimate problem of poverty and helplessness which makes the most urgent demand upon the consideration of this House. I believe that in reference to them you will have to set up wholly other machinery and entirely different agencies before you can address yourself in a really effective way to their particular needs. Therefore I am opposed to this alternative of setting up separate societies for fear that it would only give me a palliative where I want a cure, and because I greatly fear that by constructing special insurance societies I should really be establishing a barrier in the way of the
  786
  more radical and comprehensive treatment of those needs when occasion offers.
  I may be asked quite properly by Members of the Committee what alternative suggestion I have to make. In the first place, I think it will be possible, without accomplishing a very great deal, to modify the proposed arrangements so far as the particular provisions of this Clause are concerned. For instance, I believe that the provision included in Subsection (g) must go. I do not think it could stand examination for half an hour in debate in Committee. I would have liked, had it been possible, to have offered some inducement to approved societies not to reject applicants wholly on medical grounds. Unfortunately, that issue was raised in what I regard as an impracticable way last week, and I understand that the question is closed so far as we are now concerned. But there is one point on which I wish to make a special appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sincerely hope that on reconsideration he will consent to meet us by some concession regarding arrears of contributions due to unemployment. I believe that he could make a concession of that kind which would not cost much in money, but which would stop one possible source of recruits for the deposit contributor scheme, if he could see his way to make it. I fully admit—it is necessary to admit—that the proposals he has made with reference to arrears are exceedingly generous; they are quite unparalleled in their generosity. But we cannot hide from ourselves the fact that it is a compulsory and not a voluntary scheme, and that the injustice of this proposal will be felt to a degree far greater than its intrinsic importance warrants.
  What I think most important of all is that we should try to stop the stream of deposit contributors at its source. In connection with this, I want first of all to appeal for a very considerable extension of the sanatorium benefits under this scheme. Whatever else may be doubtful about the deposit contributor, this much I think is certain. To a very large extent he will represent the tubercular person, who, on the ground of tuberculosis, is rejected by the approved societies. I am perfectly well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already promised a concession on that point. He has promised to make arrangements whereby, with the co-operation of the local authorities, he will extend sanatorium benefits by means of special grants from the State to the wives and children of insured persons.

  787
  I want him to go further. Under the provisions of Clause 32 it is possible for a deposit contributor, who may himself be a tubercular person, to drop out of the benefits of the sanatorium, and out of the treatment he most urgently requires, because his surplus at the Post Office is exhausted. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to extend the benefits of this sanatorium treatment, one of the most beneficent proposals ever introduced, to every man, woman, and child who needs it in the community at large.
  May I say, in closing, that I do not think this in itself is enough. It does not go far enough back. The problem of the deposit contributor is not, as we have been accustomed to regard it, a problem of the adult. I believe it to be a problem of the child. Parliament, in common with most social reformers, is accustomed to treat social problems as adult problems, and not as problems of child life. The real tragedy of social life is not that we have here and now a certain number—it may be thousands—of persons who are reduced to a state of comparative helplessness, great physical unfitness, and great physical need. The real tragedy of civilisation is that we go on from generation to generation perpetuating this class, and never make any effective effort to stop the stream at its source. The object of this Bill is to modify and diminish the problem of poverty by improving the quality of the national health. I venture to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he cannot hope to improve the quality of the national health so long as he treats it as an adult problem and not as a problem of the child. May I illustrate my point? We are all agreed, I think, that two of the main classes of the deposit contributors will be casual labourers and physically unfit persons. Anybody who has made even a cursory examination of the problem of unemployment as it concerns the casual labourer has, I think, realised that it is not always, and sometimes not very largely, an economic problem. It is rather a problem of physical unfitness or physical inefficiency and need. Whenever you can catch the unemployed unskilled labourer young enough to link him up with his school history and the history of his youth, you will find that the problem in his case is not an economic problem. It is a problem of weakness and poverty in youth, sometimes
  788
  in infancy, which has handicapped him from the start in the industrial world.
  So, too, with those who are physically unfit. I venture to say that those who come into this scheme as physical unfits will not be physical unfits at the adult stage only; the great majority of them will have been physically unfit in their infancy, childhood, and youth. It is not enough to catch the unfit man in the years of adolescence or in the adult stage. It is absolutely essential, if we are to build up the national health, that we should go further back, and try to stop the stream at its source. I have been reading, in common with many other hon. Members, I suppose, during the last two or three days, the in some ways inspiriting, in many other ways saddening, report of Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the Education Department. That report outlines to us a condition of things which makes it perfectly hopeless to attempt to build up the national health while we allow this condition of things to go un-remedied. When you have, as according to the report you have, nearly four million out of six million children on the registers of your public elementary schools of England and Wales suffering from defined and, in many cases, most serious weaknesses and physical defects, it is impossible to hope for a radical improvement of the national health. It is not merely a question of England and Wales. Anybody who has read the report and the evidence of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, or has mastered the reports of the investigations in Edinburgh, Dundee, Glasgow, and elsewhere, or has read the Report of the National Commissioners of Education in Ireland, knows how widespread and universal the problem is. In Ireland we are killing the people by allowing the springs of health to be poisoned in the child. It is not, in my estimation, until we link on to this great insurance scheme provisions for the child and for the needs of the child that we shall make as effective a contribution to the improvement of health in this country as we otherwise might. I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that he has to supplement the present scheme by dealing with the problem of child life. If he will only give from the Exchequer some financial aid, toy subsidy or otherwise, to second the efforts of local education committees, the condition of things that is outlined in Sir George Newman's report will, I venture to say, become an impossibility in the next genera

  789
  tion. This Bill in certain quarters has been attacked and criticised as if it had created the problem of the deposit contributor. The Bill has not created the problem represented by the deposit contributor. The Bill has done inestimable service in segregating that problem, isolating it, so that we may know its nature and dimensions. I venture to say that when this scheme has been in operation for a few years we shall be in a far better position to understand both the nature and the dimensions of the deposit contributor problem than we do at present. That is why I hope we shall not hurriedly, and in haste, attempt to set up alternative machinery to the proposals in the Bill. We are at present in the dark. We do not know how many deposit contributors there may be. We do not know what their general character will be. It may be that the number of deposit contributors under the scheme will be far fewer than is now supposed.
  I believe that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to exempt entirely from contribution those adult workers whose earnings are less than 9s. per week will materially simplify the problem. I also think that the inclusion of industrial and other societies will also, by increasing the pressure of competition, help to introduce into the benefits of the larger scheme many who otherwise would be forced into the position of deposit contributors. What I do most earnestly implore the Committee to do is to allow us time to see this scheme at work. Meantime I am not content to leave the condition of things we now find to go on indefinitely. I believe that the problem of the deposit contributor is a problem which this Parliament is morally bound to deal with, and I want the Parliament that is to deal with the adults, with this general scheme of National Insurance, to be a Parliament that will complete its work by solving the problem of the deposit contributor also. Therefore, I would venture to suggest the Amendment that we put in a time limit, and say that this scheme shall continue on its present lines until the 1st January, 1915. That will give us at least three years' sure evidence of the working of the scheme We shall know more about the problem in three years' time than any man in this House knows at the present time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept some Amendment of the kind I have put forward I think that he will certainly greatly improve the character and prospects of his own scheme,
  790
  and he will send forth a message of hope and an assurance of help to those who are the most needy and the most pathetic class of the community.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that no other Member of the House has risen to discuss this question, because I should have preferred to wait and hear some other alternative proposition which might have been made in regard to the Post Office depositors. I think everyone must agree that we have to-night reached a most difficult, and, I think, a most important part of the Bill. The proposition, as outlined by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) as to what the deposit contributors' part of the scheme really means is, on the whole, a fairly accurate one. But I dissent almost entirely from him that by any such means as he proposed we would get really at the root of the difficulty. I contend that it is not that the problem of the deposit contributor is one that is inherent in the commercial life that we live under to-day. It is inherent in the housing conditions under which so many thousands of our people live, and it is inherent in the fact that multitudes of men and women are unable to earn enough wages to provide the necessaries of life. The very report that the hon. Member mentioned, that of Dr. Newman, it self shows that a good deal of the disease and bad health amongst the children is due to malnutrition, bad feeding, and generally bad home conditions.
  No amount of insurance—and I was expecting to hear the hon. Member say this over and over again—against the result of that condition of things can be any satisfactory solution to the problem. I want very emphatically to say that in my judgment this scheme that we have been discussing all these months starts on the assumption that when you have evils arising from bad health, or evils arising from unemployment, the proper thing to do is to set up a scheme of insurance against them. In contradistinction to what has been said, I want to say that this proposal to insure, against ill health and unemployment, is proceeding altogether on the wrong lines. If there is anything in what the hon. Member said, it is that most of these evils are preventable. Most of the things which he has pictured to us in a fashion that I think everyone of us must appreciate, arise not at all from causes over which we have no control, but from causes over which we have control. My objection to the whole of this scheme is that we are proposing to

  791
  set up an elaborate scheme for insuring against the effect of evils which we might prevent if we took the necessary steps to prevent them.
  I want, at the risk of boring the House, in a very common-place sort of way, to put before hon. Gentlemen the proposition that you have in every slum area children and young people suffering from phthisis and tuberculosis, and I understand that some steps are going to be taken to deal with them when they are first attacked with these diseases. Let me just give the House my experience of dealing with them in that particular way. For my lifetime I have lived amongst the people, and am still living amongst the people, who will make up the great body of Post Office contributors. In that lifetime I suppose I have raised money to send some dozen or more quite young people to a sanatorium. It cost a good deal of money to get the treatment. Nearly everyone of them has come back to live under their former wretched conditions and the disease has got hold of them again. Under this scheme we are invited to send people to sanatoria and to give them the benefits of fresh air. I invite the Committee before it embarks on any such proposal to pay a visit to the slum areas of Poplar, Hoxton, Bethnal Green, and Bow, and ask themselves whether it is any use pouring out money over sanatoria treatment and then sending the people who are suffering back again to those same kind of conditions?
  I imagine that some hon. Members have thought that I and others were extremely bitter about this Bill. The reason I am bitter about it is that we are raising up hopes among these unfortunate people that something is now going to be done to lift them out of the slough of despair and misery that they are in. I say very respectfully to the House—and I speak what I know, not theoretically—that any such proposal as this to lift people out of the slums is foredoomed to failure unless you, first of all, prevent people living in slums. The first thing to be done is to give people living conditions. You do not do that; you come forward with this Bill, which, I say, leaves the helpless and destitute just where they are. People talk about these Post Office depositors sometimes as if they were ne'er-do-wells. Aye, and just now as if they were casuals, and, indeed, men who are physical wrecks. You have only to go and see the problem at the docks and in building jobs, in the loading and unloading of coal on the river, to see at
  792
  once that the men who are casual labourers are not the physical wrecks they are sometimes thought to be. They are fulfilling a service that our commercial business arrangements make it absolutely necessary should be fulfilled by someone or the other. Until that is altered we will not go far ahead.
  People ask what other scheme we have. There is one written. It may not be a perfect scheme. No scheme is. But you have the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. Not a shred of evidence taken by that Commission and embodied in those Reports need to have been printed for all the good they have done in helping to draft the measure that is now before the House. I am throwing no blame upon either of the Reports, either the Minority or the Majority, but what is the evidence of the four doctors of the Local Government Boards of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, together with the head of the Public Health Department of the Local Government Board? Their evidence need never have been given. What did each one of them put on record? That it is quite useless to pour out money in mere treatment. Each one said that it is useless to attempt to tackle the problem of the destitute poor merely by doling out treatment or money. Each one of them put it on record that the thing, and the only thing, to be done is to prevent people ever slipping into living under those conditions at all. This Bill, and certainly this part of the Bill, does nothing to prevent that.
  8.0 P.M.
  You may, if you please, carry the proposition as it stands. I join the hon. Member in condemning paragraph (g), which forfeits the amount of money that a deposit contributor may have to his credit on death. I think I should be ashamed to be a Member of this House if any such proposition as that is carried. A more barefaced robbery, I think, could not possibly be imagined. I want to put my own proposition as it stands on the Paper. I maintain, first of all, that these people are victims of their conditions. I hope someone will attempt to prove that they are not. These conditions they have absolutely no control over. They are conditions which society has driven them to. I want to repeat something that I stated in the House once before, and I hope the Committee will excuse me doing it. If you go into the Local Government Board offices you will see there maps of every great capital of Europe. According to these maps the poor people live right down in

  793
  the lowest part of every city, and in the lowest part of each of the great towns. No matter what the great town is the poor are herded in the least healthy part of it. I spoke a little while ago of the district I come from. There tuberculosis, phthisis, bronchitis, and all these diseases are most rife, most prevalent in those parts where we are nearest the river, and where the people are living on unhealthy land where people ought never to be living at all; along the banks of the River Lea. These people, according to the Bill, are to be called upon to insure against the result of living under these conditions. That goes on the assumption that these people had some choice as to where they should live, whereas we all know perfectly well if people could choose where they were to live they would select the healthiest spots they could. The problem of East London is proved by the fact that every one who can live outside it does so. But there you have them segregated together under wretched conditions. Everyone who knows the conditions of London knows that is true. I put it as a sane proposition to sane people that it is not fair that these people should be called upon to insure in the way proposed in this Bill and to insure as those will have to do under the Post Office scheme of this Bill. I call the attention of the medical men particularly to this fact. Not more than fifty or sixty years ago the system of dealing with house refuse and sanitary arrangements in the City were a disgrace to civilisation. When I was a boy I used to be taken to church to pray for the removal of small-pox, cholera, and other diseases. Everyone in his senses to-day knows that small-pox is not a plague sent by the Almighty, but that it is a dirt disease, and that by getting rid of the dirt you get rid of the disease, and that by proper and capable prevention you get rid of the diseases, as your fathers got rid of the plague and small-pox. If our forefathers were lunatics enough to set up State Insurance against cholera, small-pox, diphtheria, and all other such preventable disease when I was a boy these diseases would still be with us. Instead of that they took the sound and sensible course which the Government and those who make eloquent speeches on the evils of consumption and other diseases are not taking. I contend what the Government ought to do is to follow on the lines of public health legislation which our fathers adopted to put an end to disease, instead of insuring against
  794
  preventable evils—I want to emphasise that point as strongly as I can—and to impress upon the local health authorities the duty of combating diseases in their districts and giving the poorer district what help we can nationally to rehouse their people and to get rid of the conditions against which this Bill wants them to insure. I set against the phinciple of mere insurance the principle of prevention and treatment.
  I do not want to be told I am not in favour of helping the poor consumptives. I am in favour of helping the consumptive, but I want to lift him up permanently and not to tumble him back again into the same condition. I ask the Government to stick to the lines of the public health legislation of the past, and in doing that I am only asking what I should have thought was the natural thing to do. Will anyone tell me what is the difference between the public health authorities taking a consumptive patient and treating him in an efficient manner and finding out the cause that produced consumption and phthisis and dealing with small-pox patients. Anyone who knows anything about public health knows that if a person gets small-pox he is taken hold of and treated in a certain manner, no matter what his income may be; he is isolated by the public health officer, and no charge is made unless he is able to isolate himself. You want to protect society from smallpox, and the medical officer finding a person suffering from small-pox goes right back and traces where the case came from, sees that the conditions are cleared up, and that nobody else gets the disease. I put that case to the Government, and I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to hear what I suggested, because I expect to learn to-morrow that no one has made any proposal to him about this matter. I hope somebody on the Government Bench will remind him that however stupid that proposition may seem it was the course our fathers adopted. They dealt with the person affected, and they took precautions to prevent anyone else from being affected. They never dreamed of putting an insurance scheme in force against a disease which was preventable. One other word, and again I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. I say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the country and makes the public speeches he has made upon this subject, and tells these people that he has a message of hope for

  795
  the poor and the destitute and those who are low down generally, he is playing with words and playing with the problem which exists amongst the poor.
  Any man who knows this problem knows perfectly well that this scheme will not help the destitute, will not help the casual, and will not help the sick poor in our cities. They know as well as I do that all the evidence you can accumulate proves that the people who will be refused by the friendly societies, and will not be able to get into them are people you are going to tax just the same as if they were in the friendly societies, and in the end they will not have any insurance at all. People talk about 9s. a week. Everyone knows that according to the schedule the rates are to be deducted per day, in these cases. The question was asked as to which employer ought to deduct the payment under the Bill, and the answer was "the employer who employs the person on the first day." That does not mean that you are going to deduct 4d. or 3d. or 2d. from 9s. or 12s., but from 1s. 6d. a day and upwards. Take the case of the charwoman. I know a good many of them, and you are going to say to the woman who gets 2s. a day charing that her wages are based upon 12s. per week, and that she must pay 2d. Another woman who may be earning 9s. a week will get off scot free. Some Members disagree with that, but I am only going by the Schedule. There are people who may have got some backstairs information, something different as to what is going to happen; that is not my fault. I take the Bill and the Schedules of the Bill. When that proposition which is lauded in the country as a proposition to help the poor it is a fraud upon the poor. It is telling them that there is help for them where there is really none. I do not want that there should be any misunderstanding about my position in regard to this Bill. Not only do I say that the landlord and other people who own land drive the poor into these slums, but I say this country of ours is getting richer and richer every day while the poor and the workers are getting poorer and poorer every day, and I am not going to have any sort of hand in a mere insurance scheme for the purpose of exploiting the poor. You and I are borne upon the backs of the tellers and the workers and you never will get them out of their misery until you take that load off their backs, and because this Bill postpones that day I am opposed to it and hope it will not be carried.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not generally agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, but I am bound to say that I do agree with the greater part of what he has said to-night. We are dealing here with what I believe to be the crux of the whole Bill. So far we were dealing with the better off among the working classes who can insure themselves as members of friendly societies. Now we are dealing with the poorest of the poor, who cannot get into friendly societies, who represent the very poorest casual labourers and bad lives. These are the people who, above all, want the help of the Government and of the House of Commons, yet what is the proposition made on their behalf in this National Insurance Bill? I venture to say it is a most ineffectual proposition, and the worst part of the whole Bill. It is called insurance; it really is not insurance at all, it is compulsory thrift amongst people so poor that in most cases they cannot exercise any thrift at all; they ought not to be compelled to exercise thrift. It is compulsory thrift of a very ineffectual order, with the result that it will be impossible for those people, and after a short time they will be turned out of the scheme and will get nothing at all.
  The hon. Member has put his finger on the right spot when he pointed out that the proper way in which we ought to proceed is not by thrift but on practical lines of health and by going to the root of the matter. I think he was perfectly right in saying that the chief cause at the root of the difficulty is the terrible housing conditions of the people in many of our large cities. The hon. Member said that the deposit contributors will be largely drawn from people living in very unhealthy conditions; he pointed out that the sanatorium plan would have no permanent effect, because when these people left the sanatoriums they would have to return to the horrible unhealthy hovels from which they came. Speaking for myself, and I speak with some experience as Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, I say if this million of money which is to be spent in sanatorium benefits was handed over to the local authorities to get rid of the slums we should do a great deal more than trying to cure that which requires prevention at the very source. This Bill, in the Clause which I cannot discuss and in this Clause, strikes the evil too late. We want to go to the source, and I quite agree with the hon. Member that instead of spending

  797
  money on compulsory thrift if we went to the source and dealt with unhealthy conditions and the clearing away of those horrible slums which the local authorities cannot clear themselves, we would be doing a great deal more good than can be done by the sanatorium Clauses in this Bill and under the Clauses we are discussing at the present moment. I do not hesitate to say if I had £1,000,000 a year from national sources to spend in the slums I should do a very great deal more good for the poor than this Bill will do. Can it be supposed that by these provisions we are giving any substantial help to the poorest of the poor? I do not want to say a word against helping the better-off amongst the working classes. I have supported this Clause, and I have supported this Bill all through, but this House should try to assist those who are the worst off of all. What is this Clause? After all it is only compulsory thrift. A man has to contribute for fifty-two weeks before he can get anything, and at the end of that time he can only get just what stands to his credit. It has been calculated that he can get about two and a-half weeks' sick benefit. Suppose a man falls sick and is out of work, and he has contributed for a whole year. He gets two and a-half weeks' sick benefit, and then he is turned out of the scheme. What is going to become of him? This is called a universal scheme of national insurance.
  The case made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that although there are only about six million people insured in friendly societies there are fifteen million who ought to be insured, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by this scheme you will drag in the other nine million. I venture to say that he will not drag in anything like the nine million, and of those which you succeed in dragging in by the end of the year half of them will be out of it again, and they will never come back. What becomes of the universality of the scheme? You are compelled to subscribe and to insure for a certain number of years, and when you have done that out you go. This is supposed to be a scheme, not for the better-off of the working classes, but for the weakest and the poorest of all. Look at some of the other provisions: a man may go on getting medical and sanatorium benefits after he has lapsed until the expiration of the current year. If it is the 30th of December, he will be able to go on for one day. Take another extraordinary provision which has already been alluded to by the
  798
  hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. The Bill says, "The amount standing in the Post Office fund to the credit of any deposit contributor shall, upon his dying, be forfeited." These poor people get no benefit during their lifetime, and they can merely draw what stands to their credit, and why should they not get the benefit of what stands to their credit at death?
  Mr. LANSBURY: The insurance companies will not allow it to be done.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think that provision ought to be taken out of the Clause. To be strictly in order, we are discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which, I understand, aims at limiting the provision of this Clause to the year 1915. His object is that by that time we shall have arrived at something very superior to what is contained in this Clause. I hope his ideas are correct, and if I thought there was any chance of Parliament being able to evolve by the year 1915 some better scheme than this Clause contains I would support the Amendment. I venture to tell the Government that they will never evolve anything better so long as they proceed on the lines which they are now proceeding upon, and they must in this matter follow the lead of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. They must go to the cause of the trouble rather than come in at a later stage and provide an absolutely inadequate remedy. If they would expend a great deal more money upon assisting localities to carry out the laws of public health and such matters as getting rid of slums and rehousing the people under more decent surroundings, they would do more towards, solving the difficulty of the deposit contributor than in any other way. Who is the deposit contributor? As a rule he is a man unable to join the friendly society because he has got some inherent disease which probably he picked up in his early surroundings. If you get rid of the horrible conditions of the early surroundings of these people you prevent them growing up in this state in the future, and in that way you will do more to solve the terrible question of the deposit contributors and help the poorest of the poor, and the people want to help most of all, than by any amount of compulsory thrift, even when it is State-aided.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has very much under-estimated the preventive character of this Bill. One of the

  799
  most serious charges made against this Bill in the country is that it is not really preventive in character, and that it does not go to the root of the question. I think we must readily admit that you cannot sweep away in one Bill all the great social evils, the vast and complex social evils to which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley alluded. I think we may claim that in curing and asking for the means of curing cases of sickness which are at the present time considered incurable, we are doing that which is essentially preventive in character. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley gave an instance of this. Although he does not consider this Bill will be useful, actually he has personally acted along the lines which this Bill proposes to make national, because at great trouble and expense he went to the extent of raising funds by means of which a number of men could be sent to sanatoria. The hon. Member says that is not all that is necessary, and we all admit that, but if he did that as a private citizen and for his neighbours, surely we should not be condemned for doing our best to make possible a great national measure like this under which we do for the whole community what the hon. Member, as a generous citizen, was willing to do for his neighbours.
  I want to appeal to the Committee to realise that the Bill is really far more preventive in character than the hon. Member will allow. Remember that by curing a single case of consumption you are preventing the growth of a large number of other cases. We cannot be quite hopeful as to the immediate preventable character of all our social evils, because after 2,000 years the medical profession are unable to cure, or to prevent even such a complaint as cold in the head. We shall have for centuries a vast number of serious diseases to fight against in spite of the advance of science, and, therefore, for generations we shall need to have national measures such as this to help to deal with sickness when it arises. We cannot hope in two or three generations to stop the causes of sickness altogether, in such a way as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley seems to think possible. I want, in a few words, very strongly to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn a favourable ear to the request which has been so powerfully made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that he will supplement his scheme,
  800
  generous as it is, by an additional Treasury Grant to deal with the case of the children. I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will agree it would be essentially a preventive measure if, along with this Bill and as a foundation for it, we got the promise of an increased Treasury Grant for the medical treatment of children. It may be urged that this has nothing to do with an insurance measure, but surely it is essential for the final success of an insurance measure that we should prevent in childhood diseases which, if they are not prevented, will make very serious inroads upon the insurance fund at a later stage. It is in the case of the deposit contributors that such preventive measures will be most of all needed, and such a Grant-in-Aid to help the local authorities in their treatment of children in connection with the already existing medical inspection would be the most important step that could be taken to prevent future great inroads upon the insurance fund, and it would in particular protect the interests of the deposit contributors. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley spoke especially of the hardship that would be felt under the Bill by such classes as domestic charwomen. The ordinary domestic charwoman would not be a compulsory contributor. It would only be the charwoman employed in a business house under the Second Schedule—
  Mr. LANSBURY: That really does not affect it, because there are many women employed even in business houses just one or two days in the week.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I quite accept that. Although I think the hon. Member has overstated the hardship that would arise, I do think it remains a very real one, and we must add to the class of charwomen employed in business houses those persons engaged in seasonal trades, such as the workers in the slipper-making industry in East London, the workers in trades connected with furriery, and the Irish labourers who come over to this country for the harvest season. All these people will inevitably come into the deposit contributor class. They would not attract the friendly societies as prospective members, and undoubtedly in their case the hardship would be very great if this were to be the final provision for them. We on this side of the House do not for a moment regard this Clause as a final provision any more than we regard the Bill in its present form as the last

  801
  word on the subject. It is the first essential and by far the greatest step in probably a series of measures and, regarding it in that light, we can support the Clause, but we can only support it as a temporary measure. We therefore appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this perfectly clear to the country by accepting some such Amendment as that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
  In conclusion, I want, if I may, to add my own plea that paragraph (g) may disappear in its present form. I am one of those who put down Amendments dealing with that particular point, and, if it is not possible to be more generous—and I understand there are reasons which make it almost impossible—I hope it may at least be possible for the Government to accept in that particular case the suggestion I have ventured to make. Although it may be impossible upon the death of a deposit contributor to return the whole of the money which stands to his credit in the Post Office account, it should be possible to return the money which he himself has paid in, as distinct from the money paid in by the employer and the money received from, the State. If that money, possibly with interest, could be returned, and if it could be administered for the benefit of his widow and his dependents by the health committee, I think we should remedy a great injustice which may arise from the Bill. I venture to say it would not be death benefit in the ordinary sense of the word. There would be no insurance. There would be no additional advantages. The actual contributions the man himself had paid in would be returned, and no more. I venture very strongly to plead with the Government to be willing to accept some such proposal.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not see my way to supporting the Amendment, because I consider the whole scheme with regard to the deposit contributors is so thoroughly bad that it is no good saying it shall be reconsidered in three years' time. It will be far better to drop it out altogether. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some new scheme he intends to put forward at the last moment to meet the case of the deposit contributor, I believe there will not only be no benefit for the people who come in under the Post Office scheme, but there will be serious harm. The Clause says deposit contributors may be insured persons who, having been members of approved societies, have been expelled therefrom. That
  802
  shows one great class who would come in as deposit contributors would be members who had been expelled from other societies. How many employers would be prepared, after this, to take on, except under stress, a man who is a deposit contributor? The very first question asked by any employer taking on a new workman would be, "What society are you insured in?" and when the man said he was a deposit contributor the employer would know he was a man who had been expelled from a friendly society, or was a man whose life was too bad for the friendly society to accept. How many of these men under those circumstances are going to be employed? It is perfectly obvious that far from doing anything to benefit or assist this class, you will be deliberately hurting their future chances of getting employment in this country. Surely there ought to be some other system found. Surely it is not beyond the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making this Christmas Box to find something to give to the class who want it. This class is not going to be benefited in any degree.
  There will be a great many people who will not come in. How are you going to get the large number of casual labourers, the people who do odd jobs on their own, such as porters? How do you propose to get them in? If they come into this Post Office scheme as deposit contributors they will be very seriously penalised indeed in their chances of getting employment in the future. I hope the Government, if they have no proposal for remodelling this system of deposit contributions, will put the whole thing aside for future consideration. We are hurrying this thing through, heaven knows, fast enough. Is it possible in the time to produce a decent scheme? If not, drop this class out altogether and deal with them next year. Pass your Bill as it is and deal with that problem in a different way another year. I do not think it is possible that the machinery to be set up by this Bill will assist or help this class. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he makes his statement on this scheme as a whole will be prepared, if he cannot propose anything better, to drop this out and deal with the question as a whole next year.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I do not quite appreciate the view arrived at by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley—
  Mr. LANSBURY: I thought I made it clear that I desired prevention rather than treatment.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I am very glad to have that admission from the hon. Member, but I confess I do not quite understand his objection to the measure even in its present form. The hon. Member referred to the housing question, but he forgot to mention that that question was very much one of wages, and if the hon. Member should introduce into this House some measure calculated to increase the wages of working men I, for one, shall be most pleased to support him. It is only fair to say that the new provision with regard to members of the smaller friendly societies has considerably increased the advantages. But then there is the case of the casual labourer: the man whose wages are very low, even when he is in full employment. Take the case of the agricultural labourer in North Wales. His average is 18s. 7d. per week. In Denbighshire it is only 18s, and in another part it falls to 17s. 6d. Allowing for the time that the man is out of work, and for other contingencies, it is easy to see that he will soon be out of benefit. I agree that there is considerable difficulty with regard to the question what can be done in such a case as that. But I am entirely at a loss to understand the position taken up by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He condemns the whole Bill, root and branch, because he says it is intended to tax the workman and compel him to contribute out of his hard earned small wage. Anyone who takes an interest in the question knows that the average wage of the working man is very often insufficient to meet the needs of his family, and I for one would have been pleased if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to apply to all who receive less than 20s. per week the rule he now proposes to apply to those obtaining less than 9s. But I do not understand why if the Bill does not go so far as we could wish we should object to it in toto. I agree that any man obtaining less than 20s. a week should make no contribution, and I should be very pleased indeed to see accepted later on an Amendment excluding those who get less than 20s. from making this contribution. I would like to see the whole burden of their insurance put upon the Imperial Exchequer.
  Under Clause 59 there are special provisions with regard to Ireland, including one for the establishment of county societies. One of those provisions provides for a reduction of benefits below the minimum fixed by the Act. I take it that that provision is intended to meet the case of
  804
  the agricultural labourer in Ireland who may not be able to contribute even 4d. per week. If so, that is a provision which may well be applied to rural districts in England and Wales, and county councils might be vested with the power of making rules laying down conditions applicable to the circumstances in which they find themselves. The Welsh Members have suggested that such a provision should be applied to Wales, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say, even if he cannot apply it to England, that he will do so to Wales.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: We all listened with deep attention to the speeches of the hon. Members for Huddersfield and Bow and Bromley—speeches which impressed the House because they were delivered by men speaking from practical experience. I am sure every Member of this House shares the sincere desire to improve the conditions of the working classes and, as far as possible, to prevent illness. But, after all, this is an Insurance Bill. Its object is to mitigate and improve the lot of a man who is ill, but it does not profess or pretend to have within its purview an alteration of the Poor Law. It does not pretend to ameliorate the lot of the working classes of the country except in so far as it improves their conditions when they are ill. Therefore it seems to me, deep as everybody's sympathy must be with the real need in this country for preventing conditions which give rise to illness, there is no reason why we should not support a Bill the purview of which is, as far as possible, to mitigate the lot of those who are already ill.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley objected to the whole of this Clause because, he said, it would be a terrible thing that a man suffering from phthisis should be taken from the place where he incurred the disease, that he should be treated under the Bill and then return to his old conditions. Everybody would desire to see a man who had been under treatment return to healthy instead of unhealthy conditions, but I cannot go to the extent which the hon. Member's logic seemed to carry him that one must oppose this scheme altogether and not treat a man who is ill because you have unfortunately to return him after his illness to the old conditions. We would rather have the conditions altered so that as soon as he is cured he will be enabled to live under such conditions as would eliminate the danger of his again incurring the disease. But I would rather see him treated under this

  805
  Bill than that he should not get the advantage which it gives him, even if he has to return to the bad conditions—I say I would rather see him thus treated than that he should get no treatment at all. I venture to think that the energy of the Members of this Committee would be better directed to improving the scheme of insurance for deposit contributors rather than dealing with a condition of things which does not come within the purview of a national insurance scheme at all, and which does not provide a remedy for things which are crying out to be remedied.
  My criticism is that this deposit insurance scheme, treating it as an insurance scheme, is so faulty. We are all at one that the deposit insurer will be the man who is not acceptable to an insured society because of the state of his health. He is the man deserving of help under this particular scheme, but how are you going to give it? You treat him less generously than any other class to whom you are extending the advantages of insurance under this scheme. The Clauses relating to him are more drastic; indeed, they are so drastic that a good many of us think that the Clauses relating to deposit insurance are not Clauses relating to insurance at all. Insurance involves that there is an advantage to the insurer beyond the actual accumulation of premiums that he pays. Every insurance scheme is founded on the principle that you average the risks, and that you create a fund to which we can contribute, the advantage of which may fall to you or to me, but does not fall to all alike. It is the averaging of the risks that creates the fund. Under this Bill you provide nothing more than this, that the insurance premiums are to be paid to a fund, and that the man who insures under certain conditions is to get back the amount of those premiums and no more, less, perhaps, a heavy percentage for management expenses. That is not insurance at all: it is merely a scheme by which you and the employer pay into a savings bank a certain sum, and you are entitled to have it back if you are ill, and even then you are only entitled to have it back if you fulfil the drastic conditions set out in the Clause.
  The deposit contributor is to pay in fifty-two weeks' premiums before he gets any benefit at all. Why? I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some scheme in his mind when framing this Clause, but it is very difficult to understand it at the present time. If the whole deposit insurance
  806
  scheme is based on this, that the contributor is to have back only what he pays, why should he not get it back at the time he ceases to pay the instalments? On what logical basis is a contributor to pay fifty contributions and lose the lot? Paragraph (g) has been the subject of drastic and well-deserved criticism. What can the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had in his mind when he proposed that if an insurer has paid contributions to the Post Office and then dies, that the whole of his contribution is to be forfeited? Forfeited to what, and why? There would be some sense if it were forfeited to a central fund and the advantages were to be spread over the whole scheme, but it is absolutely forfeited, it disappears into the ewigkeit. There is no pooling of the fund under this scheme. I suggest that the details of the scheme are such that the Committee would be well occupying its time in carrying out the expressed desire of every Member to improve the Bill if, instead of devoting eloquent speeches to social conditions we all deplore, we were to join in trying to make this deposit insurance part of the Bill rather run on more effective and more generous lines, and make it real insurance instead of leaving it as it is at present—a mere sham.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Member appears to think that it is a defect in the Bill that it does not reach everyone. Surely an insurance Bill can only insure those capable of paying premiums. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) made a rather fierce attack on this part of the Bill, and said it attempted to treat symptoms without getting down to the cause of the evils. He treated the Bill as if it were a substitute for other reforms, and not supplemental to other reforms. If I thought this Bill was to be treated as a substitute for deeper and sounder measures, I would oppose it, but, as a matter of fact, the Bill supplements the efforts which are now going on, and which will go on concurrently with the operation of this Bill. If we pause for a moment and examine what is being done in those deeper regions to which the hon. Member directed his attention, we find that the silent, unostentatious, and effective efforts of the Local Government Board have been dealing with the very evils on which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley places his finger. Within the last two years the representations made by the Local Government Board to local authorities have gone up from 6,000 to 23,000. The

  807
  number of closing and demolition orders, and orders for improvements in the houses in the slums, has enormously increased since the Town Planning Act came into operation. The efforts of public health authorities here and elsewhere have, during the last ten years, reduced the percentage of diphtheria by 50 per cent., infantile mortality has dropped 30 per cent., and the general death rate has dropped 20 per cent.; mortality from phthisis has gone down by 15 per cent. During the same period other tuberculous diseases have dropped by 20 per cent. Puerperal fever has gone down by 20 per cent., and enteric fever, a slum disease, by no less than 70 per cent. All these efforts have been going on, and are intended to go on, notwithstanding this Bill. Most of the diseases I mentioned are slum diseases, due to overcrowding, defective houses, and insanitary conditions, and most of this change has taken place during the last six years. The hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) treated this Bill as if it attempted to cure these evils instead of preventing them. It is a preventive measure, because if you prevent the lower strata from being recruited from those people who are now enjoying good health, you have a preventive measure. You can prevent excessive illness and distress in the future, and the Bill is going to do that, and in that sense it is a preventive measure.
  I think it is a matter of criticism against the Bill that it deals with symptoms and not with causes. Let me give a simple analogy. A practitioner of the old school used to treat symptoms of disease and not causes. If he had a patient with pain, he put something in his medicine for the relief of pain. If he had loss of appetite, he gave him something to stimulate his appetite. If he had loss of sleep, he gave him something to make him sleep. He treated symptoms simply because he could not make a diagnosis. A practitioner of the modern school ignores symptoms altogether and deals with causes, but if a case would take some considerable time treatment, a practitioner of the modern school would treat the symptoms promptly. If a patient were suffering acute pain he would get relief at once. If he were suffering from any of those symptoms which require immediate treatment, it would be given pending the subsequent treatment of the cause. The Insurance Bill is treating urgent conditions. I admit they are symptoms. Tuberculosis is a disease of the individual, but it is a
  808
  symptom of disease in the social body. Sickness is a disease of the individual, but it is a symptom of a condition. It is a symptom of slum life and of alcoholism. Loss of employment is a symptom in the individual, but it is a disease of the social body. Unemployment is due to defective constitution, to irregular habits, such as intemperance, and to slum life and low wages. So that you have these symptoms and the Bill deals with them, but the conditions exist now, and you cannot wait for the treatment of the cause. Consequently, the question is so urgent that this measure deals with the symptoms as they exist, but does not in any way do away with the effort that is still carried on, and in the future will be carried on, by the Local Government Board and by our health authorities.
  9.0 P.M.
  I do not look upon the Ball as being the end of the matter. It is going to be followed by other reforms. The Local Government Board effort will increase in geometrical progression from the fact that we are discovering how effective those reforms are. We are discovering how effective the Town Planning Act has been. We are discovering that if you clear out the slums you clear out the disease that belongs to the slums. We are discovering that these precautions which are being taken and these preventive efforts which are being made, are so fruitful and so immediately beneficial, that the efforts of local authorities and the Local Government Board have increased enormously in a few years, quite independently of this Bill. We are going to have compulsory notification of tuberculosis, another public health effort quite independent of the operations of this Bill. Then there will be constant supervision of defective homes which I think is necessary, and the Bill will be a great educative measure. It will suggest reform in the method of grappling with disease, and you will find that the educative value of the Bill alone will give an enormous impetus to the cure of disease and the diminution of poverty and distress. Then licensing reform will come up as a supplemental local reform, which will deal with the evils to which the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) referred. I look forward with great hope to the Bill, not that it is going to accomplish all that those who applaud it now suggest, but that it will go to prevent many of those evils to which the hon. Member refers, and prevent the recruiting of the ranks of the lower strata in our social life

  809
  from those who are enjoying constant employment and good wages to-day. In that sense it will prove to be a preventive measure.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not really feel that because the Bill happens to suggest new methods that is saying very much in its favour. Everyone will agree that the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury) made an extraordinarily interesting speech, and really exposed the grossly inadequate character of this part of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I think on the Second Reading, or perhaps on the First Reading, in connection with the deposit contributors, that he could not insure a burning house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously regards the deposit contributors as uninsurable. I do not want to go into the question of whether they are really insurable. I am sure a great many Members think very much more should be done for them. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer really believes that the deposit contributors are uninsurable, why does he go out of his way to put the word "insurance" into his policy? Why does he speak of deposit insurance when we really have it, on his own authority, that it is not insurance at all. The curious thing is that we are even to have the solemn farce in this Clause of a fall in the valuation of the banking accounts belonging to the deposit contributors, although it is not a question of valuation at all, but merely of arithmetical addition. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot really give these people under these Clauses proper insurance, would it not be wiser to make it perfectly plain not only on the floor of the House, in a speech, buy in the Bill itself? It would really raise a good many fewer hopes, and I think would be a fairer policy in the end. I hope I am saying so with all respect, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very ingenious salesman. We know that he can persuade anybody to take anything and practically pay what price he asks. But it is when you get your bargain home and begin to unpack it that the trouble begins.
  We have heard a great deal lately in the House and in the country about rare and refreshing fruits for parched lips. Will there not be some natural disappointment when it is found that the poorest of the poor and the most unfortunate of the community have only got the damaged goods at the bottom of the basket. It certainly would be very gratifying, and I
  810
  think it would vastly raise one's opinion of human nature, if some part of the fruit out of the right hon. Gentleman's basket would go to those who have no organisation, very few opportunities of protest, and, alas for them, very little voting power in the constituency. I am afraid this kind of principle is not very likely to take place in any administration and I am quite sure it is not very likely to take place if ever the business Government comes into power which is so dear to the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley). The worst thing it seems to me for social reform in the future is that its path should be strewed with the debris of the ill-fashioned schemes of the past. If anything has got to be done and can be done for the deposit contributors, it ought to be done now without any delay. When the present fluidity of the Insurance Bill has solidified into an Act of Parliament it will be practically impossible to do anything to insure these classes of the community who are now left in the lurch. The right hon. Gentleman has said at various times in this House that it is impossible, but I do not believe anything is impossible to the genius of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has surmounted many difficulties before now, and especially during the last few weeks. The whole difficulty which I think the Committee are experiencing at the present moment is due to this hasty legislation, which is being rammed through without any adequate discussion, and without any opportunity of considering any alternative policy.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: I do not altogether agree with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I differ from him absolutely with regard to the possibility of amending this Bill at a later stage. If I understand aright the German State Insurance scheme, which is a very complex measure, has been frequently and constantly amended, and I imagine that Clause 32 of this Bill which we are now discussing is one which is intended as an experiment in the direction of helping, perhaps not in a very substantial way, a body of people who are too weak to help themselves. I was looking at the latest of Mr. Charles Booth's books in regard to London, and one sentence struck me very forcibly. He is asking whether it may not be possible by some means to raise the lowest levels of human life without checking expansion and development above. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone absolutely the

  811
  right way to raise the lowest levels of human life. Personally, if I may give my own candid opinion, I do not think he has. If I wanted to reach those people who are most helpless, and yet not altogether undeserving—I mean the ineffective, the unemployable, and the casual labourer—I should begin with the children. I should begin by making a large grant, or, at any rate a substantial grant, to local education authorities for the medical treatment of children after they have been inspected. [An HON. MEMBER: "In this Bill?"] I would do it in this Bill, because I am perfectly certain that you can never remedy the weakness of a man who is called unemployable, or ineffective, in later life. You can never place him on a level with the average citizen. You must deal with that class of people while it is possible to cure their disease, and I am certain that you could make no better investment, looked at from the point of view of a State investment, than by paying a few hundred thousand pounds for the medical treatment of children who at that age can be salved and made useful citizens later on in life. That is what I feel most strongly about in connection with this measure.
  I want to say a word or two about the casual labourer. I remember speaking at a street-corner meeting a few years ago, and I admonished my audience to be more optimistic and to have better courage. A big dock worker came to mo and said, "You know Shelley's saying, 'Hell is a city very much like London,' and the whole world is hell for the casual docker." I have come to the conclusion that this Bill cannot do very much for the casual labourer. It cannot do very much for the man who is almost cursed and damned from his birth, who has never had a fair chance, who is never properly fed, and whose tissues have been devitalised. He has no real opportunity for developing his physical and mental powers. What we want is to give him a chance and opportunity. It is almost too late with the men who are grown up, but you can help the children, and, so far as these men are concerned, I am going to vote for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), fixing the date at 1st January, 1915, because I believe that by that time we may see our way out. I confess I do not think the Insurance Bill, as ordinarily understood, will do it. I have had the opportunity of speaking at a large number of meetings on this Bill, and I have always challenged anybody to come
  812
  up to the platform and tell me what is to be done with those men who have been always more or less sick or ill since childhood, and who are thoroughly ineffective and incapable, not through their own fault. I have not a bit of condemnation for them. It is the fault of their parents and of society. I challenge anyone to come up and say how you can insure these people adequately. Is there a society in existence that will take them? I contend that there is not. There is no society that will receive them. It is clear, then, that you cannot put them in an Insurance Bill except in an exceptional way, and that is the only apology I have to make for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He puts them in a class which he calls "deposit insurance," which is not insurance at all, in the hope that by the experiment some way may be discovered later on to help this large class of people, who seem to be unable to help themselves.
  All I contend for to-night is that if we support this Clause, we must not regard it as in any sense a permanent thing. It is purely an experiment until better and more satisfactory measures are devised for meeting the needs of the casual labourer, the inefficient, the unemployable, and the other classes of men the hon. Member for Huddersfield enumerated. I have listened to the speeches on both sides of the House, and I find there is a very general desire everywhere to help these people, and I am sure that general desire will find expression at no very distant date—at any rate we will say 1915—when this Government or some other Government will be compelled to bring forward a measure either amending this Act—though I cannot see how it is to be satisfactorily amended in the way of helping these people—or giving us another Bill that will do for the weakest, the most ineffective, and the most incapable, what is being done for the skilled artisan to-day.
  Mr. BAIRD: It is very agreeable to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to the House, and I must say that during his absence we have had proof of the proverb, "When the cat's away the mice will play." If anybody had wanted more candid criticisms of the Clause now before the Committee, it would be impossible to express them more clearly, concisely, and convincingly than they have been expressed from the other side of the House. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read them to-morrow. I

  813
  wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he endorses the view of his Friends on his side of the House, that this Clause is an experiment, and to state if this so-called deposit insurance—there is a great deal more deposit than insurance about it—is an experiment, at whose expense it is to be carried out. Surely that is the point. We have had a great deal of sympathy expressed for the poorest classes of the population—sympathy with which everybody is in agreement—but after all if you are going to try experiments which entail that the poorest people in the country shall first of all make a considerable deposit, then by no stretch of imagination can you include these poor people among those who are to be the recipients of "gifts," which I believe is the technical name for the benefits to be given by this Bill. Everybody will be in agreement with the desire to introduce preventive measures to go to the root and the cause of those evils.
  But can anybody pretend that this goes to the root of any of the evils which have been complained of? The hon. Member who gave such an eloquent appreciation of the President of the Local Government Board alluded to all that had been done by that Board. Can it be maintained that this Clause is going in any way to assist the kind of work that is being done by the Local Government Board? So far from helping anybody it will increase the amount of destitution, particularly with regard to casual labour. Under present conditions a man may employ during the worst part of the year a number of men on short time. This Bill compels him to pay 4d. a week for every man in addition to his wages. The natural result will be that instead of employing as many men as possible he will employ as few as possible. So far, therefore, from helping those most in need of employment at the worst time of the year, this Clause is calculated to diminish employment and wages. I see an hon. Member shaking his head as if he thought this extra payment did not matter to employers. In the part of the world from which I come there are two big concerns, one of which has made a loss consistently for ten or twelve years, while the other has never paid any dividends at all on its common stock. They employ normally about 3,000 men. They are not private concerns, but companies responsible to their shareholders, and while concerns are in that condition there is no room for generosity. After all, 4d. a week mounts up when you are employing from two to
  814
  three thousand people. You are deluding people with false hopes if you lead them to suppose that generosity of that sort is possible when at the same time industry is being hit by this burden of £25,000,000 which is being put upon it. The hon. Member who made that eloquent speech in admiration of the President of the Local Government Board indicated that this measure was to be followed by a good many others. No doubt it will be. Whichever party is in power it is bound to be followed by other measures of considerable reform, but it is idle to contend that this particular Clause in any way fits in with any scheme of social reform, or is going to assist in uplifting the lowest grades of the population. Therefore I welcome most cordially this Amendment which practically sets back the Clause to the Greek kalends. 1915 is a long way off, and whatever provision is made for these unfortunate deposit contributors so long as it does not come into effect until 1915—
  Mr. ALDEN: That is not the Amendment at all.
  Mr. BAIRD: I am sorry I misread it. I do not suppose there is very much in it, to say that a measure is only for three years. There is no time limit in the Bill or in any of the Clauses. Consequently I think I am justified in saying that if that is the Amendment it is pure waste of time to put it in. Doubtless it is put in for some other reason. The fact remains that so far as these deposit contributors are concerned very little is done for them in the Bill. Figures are quoted of social reform, about the diminution of sickness, and of overcrowding. Good work has obviously been done and improvements are taking place in the condition of the poor. But there are figures which hon. Members are not in the habit of quoting—those with regard to emigration. Whatever has been done you have not been successful in creating a state of affairs which will keep the most active people in the country. They are leaving it now-faster than ever they did. This year so far the emigration has been greater than in any previous period. That does not seem to indicate, whatever else social reform has done, that it has succeeded in making this country a, better place for working men than the other places they have gone to. When you are discussing broad questions of social reform, if you are making a levy, as you are doing, to the extent of 1s. per head per week on the

  815
  working people of this country, the first thing to do is to take steps that they shall have that shilling to spare from their wages. They are not going to get it out of this measure. The cost of living has gone up, but wages have not gone up, and the working classes are not in a position to bear any burden; nor if we consider the returns of trading and the dividends paid by companies can you contend that the business of the country is in a condition at this moment to bear any burdens. If you wish to include this measure in your scheme of social reform you are bound to take some steps to secure at any rate that those who may be called upon to pay the Bill will be in a position to do so. It is because this particular Section of the Bill which is not insurance, and is nothing resembling anything put into any other insurance Bill, seems to me by far the worst that I trust that some large Amendment will be put into it for the purpose of making its effects less harmful than they would be if it remains unaltered.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I do not wish to follow the last speaker in all that he has told us, but I think it important in a measure like this that we should recognise that we cannot do everything by one measure. Several of us on this side agree that the remarks of the hon. Member have made out an excellent case for a more drastic Land Bill, and I hope that when this Government are able to look into this question, we shall have his support in doing something to stem the tide of emigration. I wanted to combat the view he put before us that this measure could not be understood to be a preventive measure. It may not go as far as many of us desire, but if it be true that the great reason of poverty is because of sickness and unemployment, surely anything that we do to deal with unemployment, or to provide a certain sum for sickness, is in the best sense of the word a preventive measure. Very largely I agree with what has been said, that this Bill does not go as far as we desire, and I hope very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some hope to-night that he is prepared to weave into this measure some suggestions that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell). I think it is most important for us to remember that if this Bill is to be successful, and if the funds of the society are to be solvent, it is immensely important to lift up the whole
  816
  standard of the health of the nation, and I believe one of the best ways in which this can be done is to start with the child. I believe that one of the best ways of decreasing the number of men or women likely to become deposit contributors is to deal with the child, and make him or her physically fit. I hope, also, that the Chancellor will recognise how many of those who come in the class we are talking about to-night are there because of tubercular disease in one form or another. And when we remember that the results of medical inspection have been to show that there are at the present time 60,000 children in this country who are tubercular, I think that is an indication of the immense importance of dealing with that branch of the subject.
  I hope that before this Bill passes through this House the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us that he is determined to deal with this question of the eradication of consumption in a national way, and apply it not only to insured persons but to all who need it. I want also to refer to another remark that the hon. Member made. He seemed to ridicule the thought that it is worth while making this experiment with regard to the deposit contributors, even for three years. I do not think we shall find that that is the case. I am one of those who believe we shall find that these people whom we are talking about are not an insurable class, and that they must be dealt with in another way. I think it would be a real advantage to any reform measure that may follow this, if we use these three years in trying to find out exactly who these people are. We must have classification. We must find out exactly who they are, and what they need. We must collect our facts, and one of the first things to do is to try and classify the people. When we classify them, I think we shall find that a large number are unable to contribute anything at all to insurance. I think we shall find, when we come to deal with these people, that the problem raises all those difficult questions of the restriction of personal liberty, questions like compelling the people to work, of removing temptation out of the way of the people who are not morally fit to stand against it, possibly difficult questions such as separating husband and wife. It is far better for us to employ those two or three years in classifying these people, in getting our facts, so that when we do deal with the question we can deal with it in a thorough and statesmanlike way.

  817
  I think, also, we shall find that it is a question that comes very close to the reform of the Poor Law, which is a question I am perfectly certain that this Government cannot leave for very much longer. For these reasons I warmly support the Amendment that my hon. Friend has moved. I also support the suggestion that he has made for making this measure a still further preventive measure, and the suggestion that he has made that we should do all that we can to prevent men and women slipping down from membership in approved societies to becoming Post Office contributors. I believe, in that connection, that the two suggestions my hon. Friend has made will be found to have considerable substance in them. I believe that the question of arrears does want looking at, and I think that if something could be done to give some advantage to those societies which let in members without a medical test, there again we should find that we should save a considerable number from slipping down and becoming Post Office contributors. I earnestly hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to respond to these suggestions, and, if he does, I think he will immensely improve this Bill. I believe that he will give encouragement to those who have already been working in every kind of way in the localities with the object that he has in view, and I think nothing would be more likely to bring about the co-operation of the local authorities and the local education authorities than some grant given to those bodies for dealing with the question of consumption and with the medical treatment of children. I warmly support the Amendment that my hon. Friend has moved.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place during the Debate to hear not only Members on this side but several of his own Friends. My sense of humour prevented my making an appeal to an absent Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish in particular that he had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), whose election the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to secure. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made a speech with the greater part of which, I believe, everybody in this House, except perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in accord. I say the greater part of the speech, because I think the hon. Member spoiled a statesmanlike
  818
  utterance by a very cheap and Socialistic peroration. What was his peroration? He endeavoured to prove that all the evils, that everybody deplores, of the poorer classes were due to the tyrannical capitalist and to the murderous landlord.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to misinterpret me. I neither think that the capitalist is a murderous capitalist or that the landlord is a tyrannical landlord as individuals. I only attack systems, which very often make men perfectly brutal when they otherwise would not be so.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: Nothing is further from my mind than to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he can deny that he did say that all the evil which we deplore and all the miseries of the poorer classes were due, if not to the individual, then to the capitalist system. I thought those were arguments which had been relegated to street-corner orators, and I thought that the audience of the street-corner orators had relegated those arguments to the dustbin.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They have relegated me here.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: You were not relegated here for the argument advanced at the end of your speech. With the first part of that speech not only I but I believe nearly all the other Members are in accord. In that part the hon. Member said that in order to get rid of the evil we must get to the root of it and extirpate it. He also said he would like to see a large sum of money voted from the Exchequer for the benefit of the children, because I suppose he looks upon the child as a national asset. If the hon. Member will only continue to advance those arguments, which are not Socialistic, but which are sound social reform, human arguments because, believe me, it is not Socialism but social reform to help the individual to help himself, I say that if only he will continue to advance those arguments that he will get not only sympathy but support from a very large number of people who sit on this side of the House.
  Dr. ADDISON: I must confess the hon. Member who has just spoken did not seem to me to be addressing himself particularly to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: Who is?
  Dr. ADDISON: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no more serious criticism to meet than that advanced during the last hour, then I think that his Bill has a very great prospect before it. The criticism of the hon. Member for Rugby was that, in consequence of the contribution of the employers, there will be more unemployment and, therefore, there will be more deposit contributors, and that being a large class you should do nothing for them.
  Mr. BAIRD: I am surprised at the hon. Member's description of my argument. Since anything less like it I never heard.
  Dr. ADDISON: I quite recognise that the hon. Member may not recognise the conclusion, but it is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the position he placed before us. There is one point I rose to speak about, and it is in reply to criticisms made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He said that this Bill was a fraud on the poor, and that it was doing nothing to prevent the people living in slums. Why do a large number of people go to live in the slums, and in the overcrowded areas. There is an instance of 540 to the acre in part of my own constituency which is a, shame and a disgrace. They go to live in the slums for various reasons, and one of them is dealt with in this Bill. That reason is, when a man gets ill, his source of income is dried up, and if he remains ill for a considerable time he moves into less desirable quarters because he cannot afford to pay as large a rent as he paid before. He gets nearer and nearer at every step to the slum to which the hon. Member refers, and the way to prevent him degenerating to the slum is to find him sick pay and medical treatment when he is ill. There is no question whatever that the provision of sick pay for those who join the approved society, and especially for those who are in the poorest group of approved societies, will be a most effective means to prevent them recruiting the class which will make up the deposit contributor.
  As far as I can follow the argument of the hon. Member, he says there are a large number of people who are unable to enter this scheme because they will not be able to contribute, and so far as I can understand his suggestion, it is that we should treat those people by giving doles to municipalities or other authorities who will deal with them. That is the only conclusion which can be adduced from his argument. What does that mean? It
  820
  means that in the first place you are sacrificing all the element whom you can induce or assist to contribute towards their own relief. You are losing them entirely, and you are giving doles to local authorities, but who for? The hon. Member is not able to tell us who for, and we must have some means of finding out. If you are going to deal with the question in that manner, you must have a basis to go upon. I must say that the argument of the hon. Member, unless this House is to commit itself to a system of wholesale doles, simply reinforces the rationale of the Bill. His contention that the Bill will do nothing to prevent the degradation of people of the poorest class, I am heartily of opinion is thoroughly unsound. It will prevent adults degenerating, for the reasons I have mentioned and which I need not dwell further upon, and it will prevent children—and I hope the Chancellor may develop the suggestion made on this point—it will prevent the children growing up and reinforcing that class, and in that way it will prevent the recruiting, both of the child on the one side and the man on the other.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have endeavoured to give some consideration to the position of the deposit contributor, and I have come to the conclusion that under the Bill, framed as it is, his position is inevitable. It seems to me a necessary defect, for I consider it a defect on a scheme of compulsory insurance on these lines. An alternative would be to compel all friendly societies to take lives which they would otherwise reject. That is a course which no Member of the Committee would wish to adopt. Another alternative would be to give to the deposit contributor more State aid than is given to a member of a friendly society. That, again, is a course which no Member of the Committee would wish to take. You have only this position left, that you have a certain proportion of the population who really are uninsurable, and your Bill is to compel that uninsurable residuum to insure. That is the real defect of the position of the deposit contributor. It is an attempt, in order to fit them in with a general scheme of insurance, to compel the uninsurable persons to insure. The only way of dealing with that position is frankly to acknowledge that it is not insurance, and to make it, honestly and completely, simply compulsory thrift. I have put down a number of Amendments with that object in view. In the first place, treat the deposit contributor as if he were putting money

  821
  into the Post Office Savings Bank, and give him interest on his money. Under the Bill he gets no interest whatever. If it is not really insurance, give him interest as if it were an investment which he had made in the Post Office Savings Bank. I agree that he gets the contributions of the employer and of the State; but as the money stands only in his own name there is absolutely no reason why he should not have interest on it.
  Why should the long waiting periods apply to the deposit contributor? Why should a deposit contributor, when he has, say, ten months' accumulation standing to his credit at the Post Office, not be allowed to withdraw a portion of it if need be? Even though it compels him to go into the workhouse, he is not allowed to draw on his accumulation. That is an absurdity. The long waiting periods, which have a proper relation to insurance, have no relation to the case of the deposit contributor. Could anything be more objectionable than that a man should have a year's accumulation standing to his credit in the Post Office and not be able to draw on it because of a hard and fast rule which properly applies to the case of a friendly society, but has no proper application to the case of a deposit contributor? Take the case of a deposit contributor who wants to emigrate. He has money standing to his credit in the Post Office. It is in his own name; it is not mixed up with any general fund. Why should he not be allowed to draw on that? Why should it be absolutely forfeited if he emigrates? The series of Amendments which I put down is directed to making this provision what it really is, namely, compulsory thrift, pure and simple. You cannot give the deposit contributor proper insurance; therefore the best you can do is to give him his own fund when he wants it, and not tie him up by rules and regulations which have no real application in his case.
  The same argument applies to the married woman. Why should a woman forfeit what stands to her credit in the Post Office when she marries? I could understand the argument in the case of a married woman who is a member of an approved society, but in the case of a married woman who has a fund in her own name at the Post Office I cannot see why it should be forfeited. If I may summarise my view, I regard the Post Office contributor as a necessary evil of the Bill. If you have a Bill of this character I do not see how you can avoid the evil, but it
  822
  would minimise the evil if you made the position of the deposit contributor more nearly that of a man who has a sum standing to his credit in the Post Office Savings Bank. The general merits of the Bill it would be out of place to discuss, but I regard the position of the deposit contributor as a blot on the whole scheme.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: We all recognise—the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to do so—that this particular portion of the Bill is the weakest part of the scheme. It is undoubtedly the most difficult portion; it is the crux of the whole question. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that, not only at one end are you likely to get together the least satisfactory portion of the community in the matter of health, but, by working the scheme through societies, you are likely to get the best at the other end also separated. That seems tome almost inevitable when you once concede the principle of allowing separate societies to work the scheme. The more societies you allow to come in, the more you will allow select classes and select sections of the community to aggregate and get special benefits. That means that you lose the great advantage of averaging the whole community. If you could average the whole community, the strong, the healthy, and the fortunate would easily carry the burden of the weak and the ill. You lose some of the advantage of the general principle of insurance, but that seems inevitable. The point is, how are we going to deal with the difficulty before us? I have thought that there might be a possibility of, if not making, tempting by some inducement the societies to take in all these people. That would be the best possible solution if it could be managed. The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to compel societies to take in these men, for this reason. Some of them are sectional societies. You have, for instance, denominational societies. You could not compel them to take in men of another denomination. The same with temperance societies. You could not make them take in men who were not abstainers. Then there are trade unions. You could not compel them to take in men who were not members of their particular trades.
  Then you have employers' organisations for their own staff and workpeople. You could not compel them to take somebody else or some other employés in. The hon.

  823
  and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras passed on to criticise this scheme, describing it as compulsory thrift. It is something more than compulsory thrift. You are not only compelling the men themselves to subscribe, to contribute something, but you are adding to their contributions a still larger contribution from the State and from the employer. Therefore it is something more than compulsory thrift. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no interest. Oh, yes, there will be. This money will accumulate and will earn interest, and the whole of the fund is to be for the benefit of those concerned. Any surplus shown at the valuation will be available to add to the money which has been contributed by the men, by the employer, and by the State. They will thus get interest not only on their own money but on the money of the employers and of the State. It is therefore altogether erroneous to say that they are not getting interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "It is not insurance."
  It is not the best kind of insurance. But surely the principle of insurance is that those who have not fallen upon the funds should pay their contributions, should bear the burden of those who have fallen upon the funds. That is, the healthy and the fortunate will pay for the unhealthy and the unfortunate. But according to the hon. and learned Member, if a man has not had his money out, if he has not drawn his money in sick pay, he ought to be able to take it out for himself. That is not contributing to the weaker brethren. If a man has been fortunate enough not to be ill, under the scheme of the Bill his money is to remain in, and it will remain in for the benefit of those who have been unfortunate, and who have been ill. At any rate, we do get the element of insurance there. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to do in this matter. I am satisfied that he has devoted an enormous amount of attention to this very point, and that he has obtained whatever advice and suggestions he could—and we have had very little practical suggestion to-night. I do not complain. But when complaint is made we must remember that before we criticise that the right hon. Gentleman has been doing his best. He may be able to-morrow to make some suggestion.
  10.0 P.M.
  I attach enormous importance to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for York
  824
  brought before the Committee. Let us know what we have to deal with. Let us wait a bit. This scheme will sort out those who can pay and those who cannot. Until you get them sorted out it is all guess-work. Let us know how many there are who do become Post Office contributors. If we wait two or three years we shall know how many of them there are. We shall know what stamp of people they are. We shall know why they are there, and then we shall have information and facts before us which will enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to develop, his scheme. I am not very anxious to make the Post Office part of this scheme attractive just now. I do not want a lot of people in there. I want everybody to be got into the societies—the friendly societies, the trade unions, and the collecting societies. I want as many as possible to be got in there. Therefore I do not want the Post Office portion to be attractive at present. Let us get them into the societies as far as possible. Then when we have got all in that we can we may find that the number in the Post Office is so comparatively small that we may be able by some inducement to persuade the friendly societies to take those who remain. I have the impression also that the changes which have been made in the Bill bringing in the collecting societies and the great industrial insurance companies will lead to the door being opened very widely indeed for the admission of these people. There are 10,000,000 people going to be driven in—the bulk of them compulsorily. It is a fact that if these societies could have the whole of these 10,000,000 they could take them all, no matter what their state of health practically, and carry the burden easily.
  Let me give a fact. It is the custom for ordinary life insurance offices to medically examine everyone who applies before admitting them. But very few people are aware that if a life assurance office could have every person who passed its door it could afford to take the lot without any medical examination at all. It is a fact that the mortality amongst insured persons who have passed a medical examination, as compared with the mortality of the whole of the community, differs comparatively little. The object of the medical examination in life insurance is not to select the best; it is to keep out the worst—which is a very different thing. The only reason why a life office does not take everybody who goes is that it would get

  825
  all the rocky lives and would not get all the others. There is a difference in the mortality of those who are what are called "selected" and "accepted" lives, and the general mortality of a country, but it is not so large as to make a serious difference. If some large societies and large offices laid themselves out to take these people in without a medical examination at all they could get them in by the thousand. They ought to do something out of the ten millions, and I should not wonder but that you will find that enterprise will be developed amongst these organisations and that indeed a very much larger number of these people will be taken in than is at present thought of.
  It is, at any rate, a good reason for waiting a while, so that we may know what are the facts with which we have got to deal. When we have admitted to the full all the difficulty of this problem do not let us forget that it is a temporary one, that it will run off; that in a few years' time we shall have had all the population taken in. We shall have taken the young ones in as they come along, and the Post Office element will practically disappear. It is, therefore, only a temporary arrangement. I do not agree with those who think that this is the wrong way of dealing with the problem. Some hon. Member suggested that we ought to begin with the very poorest; those who need it most. I do not think that would be practical work. What we have to do is to ascertain who can insure themselves, and get to know what the residuum is. Then we will know what we have to deal with. It is all very well to tell us to clear the slums. Certainly we desire to clear the slums. Good housing is very desirable. We have heard a great deal of it to-night. But what is the fact about housing? Anybody who knows anything about it knows that when you clear a slum and erect in that neighbourhood any kind of dwellings that you like, that you do not get the people into those dwellings who were in the slums before. You do not get 1 per cent. of them in. You scarcely get one in a thousand of them in. When you clear a slum area what you do is to move the people from that area to somewhere else, where they create another slum.
  You house in the new buildings a superior class of working people and you do the very thing which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) wishes to avoid. You do not help the poorest and you do not help the slum- 826
  dweller, you help the men who can help themselves. There is a good deal of illness resulting from dwelling in slums. Is there no illness among the well-to-do and the middle class? Is there no illness that does not result from slums? If we all had desirable dwellings there would be illness and suffering. It is a good thing, therefore, to provide in this way for healing it. Everybody knows that illness and inability to secure a proper manner of attention and the loss of income that results from illness and poverty and misery, are reasons why people drift into these slums, and the way to keep them from illness is to keep them healthy, to provide proper medical attendance, to give them some assistance to keep home and family together, before they drift into the slums. We are told we are not helping the poorest. We are doing something to prevent the creation of the poorest. People become poor because they become ill and lose physical power and vigour for the want of money, and, little though the money be which this Bill provides, it will be a great help and will prevent people from going into the slums. We want to prevent the creation of that poverty and when we have done that, we want to know who are those that still remain.
  It is true the slum is a great trouble, but the slum does not create the majority of those people. The great majority of the slum-dwellers were not born in the slums: they went there from better conditions, and one of the reasons was that at the time of misfortune and illness and unemployment no one went to help them to tide over their difficulties. The Member for North Dorset suggested that we should drop the Clause as it was unsatisfactory, and he held out the view that it would prevent men from getting employment, and that no employer would give work to a man who was not a member of a friendly society and who was but a Post Office contributor. If you strike out this Clause you would not get men into friendly societies. He said every employer would ask a man, "Are you a member of a friendly society?" If that be true, and I do not think it is, he would ask that question still, and the man would not be a member of a friendly society, while at the same time he would be deprived of the benefit that this Clause would give. That is not a practical suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is anxious to deal with the children who have no chance from their birth. But one of the best ways of doing that is to help the parent and to prevent

  827
  the home from being broken up. Is this maternity benefit nothing? Help the mother to keep the home together, and that will do something to give the children a chance which at present they have not. It is easy to make proposals and to suggest that we ought to do something other than what we are doing. There are always people who will talk widely and generally, who will talk what I think the Chairman of the Labour party very wisely described the other day as "sentimental slush." It is very easy when definite proposals are brought forward to say "Not thus, and not now."
  We all know that these social problems are extremely complicated, because causes and effects act and re-act; there is no one remedy. Some people always want something else whatever it is you may propose This Government are doing many other things, but they are not neglecting this. The whole history of the world shows that what has always been the worst enemy of reform is that people will not do what is practical and possible simply because they want to do something else. This is a splendid scheme; it will confer great benefits upon the community; it will not accomplish everything, but what it does is worth doing, and let us do it.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down slightly invaded the principle which he himself laid down. In his elqouent peroration he paid a tribute in very general terms to the Bill, but upon the subject on which we are actually engaged he admitted that this Bill was unsatisfactory at present so far as I understood him, and that it should be experimental. That really is the question which I think divides us. For my part I wish to speak entirely without dogmatism, and I say that this measure, taken in its relation to the very poor, is extremely difficult to make experimental. You have no right even for three years, as the proposal of this Amendment suggests, to experiment upon the very poor. I submit your duty and obligation is to ascertain—I do not pretend to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given great labour to this subject—by seeking information from all quarters after public discussion of the Bill what the experiments are and what the requirements are in this Bill before it becomes law. It is all very well to talk about the Bill becoming experimental, but the first point I venture to make is that as to this very heavy impost you are suggesting
  828
  on the poor for three years, and which will involve a very heavy cost upon them, you should first of all look at the nation as a whole. What are you doing in this Bill? You are fashioning a vast organisation at enormous cost. We were told at the time when the Old Age Pensions Bill was passed that it would cost £6,000,000. It now costs £13,000,000. That is, that in four years the estimate has been more than doubled. The estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer under this Bill, as I understand it, is £5,000,000. That, together with old age pensions, will make £18,000,000. If the estimate of cost is anything like that which it has been under the Old Age Pensions Act the figures put by a very experienced and authoritative person of the ultimate cost of these two will be in the next generation something like £40,000,000. That is a tremendous burden—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Germany?"]—and a tremendous organisation which you are setting up.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whose estimate is that?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: It is the estimate of an authoritative writer in "The Times," who has written some nine or ten articles thoroughly well informed on the subject. At any rate, I think I am entitled to say that it is not an unlikely total when we contrast it with the fact that the estimated cost of the old age pensions scheme was £6,000,000 and the actual charge to the country £13,000,000. If I am wrong I shall be glad to be set right when the representative of the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies. Everybody will admit that the difficulty of accurately and precisely calculating the effects of this Bill is very great. With regard to the broad question raised by this Section, it appears to me that this is not a Bill for mutual assurance which, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley stated, has the merit of the strong supporting the weak, but it is really a compulsory association of individuals for insurance purposes in which the heaviest burden falls upon the poorest section of that association; and, so far as I can inform myself in this competition between the strong and the weak, the weak go to the wall. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One thing has been adverted to often in this Debate, and it is the liberty of friendly societies. I am not complaining of the liberty left to the friendly societies, and I do not desire that that liberty should be taken away.

  829
  That liberty, however, enables the strongest friendly societies to select the assured, and it will not any longer be necessary for them to canvass for lives and for assured. Inevitably the strongest societies must attract the strongest and the wealthiest members, and just as they are powerful, so they will be able to give the highest benefits. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is inevitable you will break down these benefits. Hon. Members have no doubt heard of a society for the Painless Extirpation of the Unfit. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not advocated this Bill on that basis, and I am sure he would not do so, but if you come to think of the increasing burden on the unhealthy and the poor, and if you further remember that the small employers, working upon a narrow margin of profit, will be by far the hardest hit, then you have a state of things in which you have operating against you the weak employer and the weak employed. So far as I have been able to follow the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—unless the reporters have done him some injustice—the Bill does not provide for this, and the right hon. Gentleman has only met these points broadly in the country by saying that, after all, the workmen are going to contribute 4d. and they are going to get 9d. That is a very popular way of putting at, but do the poor and the weak get this 9d.?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I think not, and I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer why. The distribution is not such as to give the poor and weak contributor 9d. for his 4d. I say, without fear of contradiction, that a considerable part of this 4½d.—it is not 5d.—which he is supposed to get over and above his contribution is infructuose and unnecessary. A quarter of that money is spent in wiping out the great debt which has been necessary in the first place to subsidise the friendly societies; and, in the next place, to level up all agencies.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman's calculation was solely concerned with approved societies, and not with the deposit contributors.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue by analogy and comparison, and I take it that is what he is doing.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: It was specially arranged yesterday there should be a general discussion on this Clause, raising broadly the question of the position of the hundreds of the weak under this scheme. The subsidy is a very large one, estimated to amount to £20,000,000. It is meritorious up to a point; at any rate, it benefits those who are members of friendly societies, but it does not benefit many of the very poor. What does the levelling up of all agencies mean? It means that the man between thirty and sixty-five who has not for some reason or another been a contributor, is by this Bill placed in the same position as if he had originally contributed. So far as that assists the man who by his poverty has been unable to insure himself, I do not complain. The charity should go, and it does go in that case, to the poor persons who have been unable to insure themselves by reason of their poverty. But that is not the whole class. There are very many men who have not insured themselves because they would not. They would not insure themselves for two reasons, either because they were reckless about the future or because they considered they might invest their money to some better purpose. It surely is a strange thing—I would almost say an outrageous thing if I were not going to dogmatise—that the contributions of the poor contributors and the young contributors, who are very often very poor, should go to assist, not the indigent among those who have not insured, but those who have not insured because they have other reasons for not doing so, or because they are too well off to require to make the provision. That is a portion of the funds being expended in an unnecessary way. Is it not inevitable if the Bill in its present form goes through—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman opposing the proposal to equalise the benefits? Does he suggest we should charge people according to their age? Otherwise I do not see the point of his observations.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: My point is that the deposit contributors who are making certain contributions by compulsion under this Bill are contributing to give benefit to people who really do not need it—to people who have not insured themselves through perhaps recklessness of life, or who have considered that they are entitled or justified in not insuring themselves because they have a better investment elsewhere.

  831
  My position is that this money compulsorily drawn from the very poor is going in certain instances to the benefit of people who really do not require it. There is further the enormous cost of administration—the two hundred new bodies to be created. I do not suppose it can be imagined that they will work entirely voluntarily or gratuitously as in most cases they have done in the past. Then there is the institution of the Insurance Commissioners, and further the cost of the Post Office. We have the staff in addition; that is a further heavy cost. I am not saying that if the Bill remains in its present form that cost is not to some extent necessary.
  But I shall later on suggest that there are forms which this Bill might take in which this element of cost might be withdrawn. There is the reduced interest which will result from the investment of public authorities compared with the investments of the Post Office. Then there is a very large sum which, I am afraid, must be put down to litigation which will inevitably ensue when it comes to be a question between two public bodies as to whose fault the increased sickness in a district is due. I am not complaining of these elements, but the suggestion I am venturing to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he should leave the organisations, which exist for the moment to deal with the sick benefits, and should use the large funds which will be set up by this Bill for the purpose of dealing far more efficiently than this Bill does with the disability and inefficiency arising from age. I think the House will admit that the most terrible spectre for the working man of this country is not sickness, but inefficiency arising in middle age and partial disability arising from sickness. These two evils are not dealt with in any satisfactory degree in this Bill. If you assume a man to become, I will not say inefficient, but not so efficient as he was, and that as a result of the tremendous competition which has already begun as a result of this Bill he is dismissed from his employment, and unable to find employment worth one-third of that he was formerly earning, that is a tremendous contingency, which, so far as I read the Bill, it does not deal with at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted on former occasions that unless a man is totally disabled he does not get any disability benefit by this Bill at all. A man at forty-five or fifty, in many
  832
  employments where high manual skill is concerned, where he may be earning 30s. or more a week, would come down to not half that amount, yet he would not, although a contributor under this Bill and one who had paid for many years to it, receive the smallest possible benefit from it. Then there is the case of premature death. That is not dealt with under the Bill at all. Although the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) dwelt with great force and feeling upon the question of children, how does this Bill deal with them? Take the case of a young married couple, the man earning excellent wages. Say that, after he has three or four children, he dies at the age of twenty-four or twenty-six, leaving a widow with the children. How is she or how is he benefited under this Bill? He gets nothing, and she gets nothing. She is obliged to remain at home to attend to the children, and is, therefore, not the subject of insurance. She does not reenter the scheme again by entering industrial employment. The nature of the case prevents her from doing so. Therefore this Bill, for which so earnest an appeal has been made, because it cuts off the mischief at the source, is extraordinarily neglectful of children, and also neglectful of widows who are doing their duty to the State and to the family by remaining with their children instead of going into industral employment. That I think is a very serious consideration. Why is not this done? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "I cannot do everything." He will point out evils that exist now and say, "I will redress some mischiefs. I cannot redress all." I put it to him that the sick pay he is giving under his Bill with so bounteous a hand to the working classes is really, to many of them, almost unnecessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles at that. I have figures which I will ask him to deal with showing that, with reference to eight or nine millions of the population of this country, sick pay is already a subject of insurance. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the authority of his actuary, he can deny that figure? In the next place I say there are large classes to whom sick pay is really superfluous.
  Two and a quarter millions of domestic servants do not require sick pay or insurance for sickness. As the House knows perfectly well, domestic servants are almost invariably cared for by their

  833
  employers, and if they could be polled say that inasmuch as they are insured to say that inasmuch as they are insured to the extent of a month's wages in the great bulk of cases, this sickness insurance is superfluous for them, and they would far rather, if they were able to do it, have some system by which they could obtain a pension at a much earlier age than seventy—at an age, in fact, when their efficiency as domestic servants ceases to exist.
  There is a very large number of other cases to whom also this sickness insurance must be a matter of indifference, that is to say, the industrial classes, who are already secure in that respect. We need only point to servants like railway servants, bank clerks, insurance clerks, servants of corporations, nurses, and many other large classes who are already secure as regards their sickness, to whom, therefore, sick pay is superfluous. This is the suggestion which I press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for consideration, the suggestion that as the Bill stands at present the poor and weak contribute unnecessarily to the support of the strong and the healthy, and that they contribute in respect of a matter in which many of those who are going to be objects of benefit really do not need that benefit. That is to say, many classes who are going by the organisation of this Bill to receive extensive sick pay are really not in need of it, and a very large class who are affected by this Bill, if it was left to their free choice, would be enormously benefited by much stronger and much more beneficial provisions in place of sick pay, I mean provisions in favour of disability and a pension arising at an earlier age than seventy—pension on disability—who earn their wages as under the German system to the extent of one-third, or at any rate a pension arising at a much earlier age than seventy. That is the suggestion I make. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say there has been no time to consider such a proposal, and that to do what I suggest would mean a bouleversement. That is no answer to the general conclusion that the proper course would have been, in dealing with this great subject, to thoroughly debate the matter in the House on Second Reading, say a longer Second Reading Debate, and then, as has often been done in the past, allow this matter to rest, with the information obtained in that Debate, instructing the country for another twelve months, obtaining from the country during that time an infinite number
  834
  of criticisms and suggestions which it is quite impossible for the Chancellor or any man with ten times his brain to anticipate, to have thoroughly digested those criticisms and then to have come to this House definitely stating what your plan was after thorough consideration of all those difficulties and a thorough resolution of the manner in which you treat it, instead of coming here and treating this as an experimental Bill and at the same time asking very considerable classes of the community to make very heavy contributions under it.
  Mr. HAROLD CAWLEY: Like other Members of the Committee I am not absolutely satisfied with the Clause as it stands. There is one particular part to which I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the Clause as it stands, when a man is ill, and the end of his year comes, he may be receiving medical benefit, and the doctor may cease to attend him, no matter how ill he may be. The same thing happens if he is in a sanatorium. When the time comes, out he must go. That seems to me to be a flaw in the Clause, but when all that is said I cannot help feeling that its defects have been grossly exaggerated, and by no one more than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton). In the first place, he referred to this part of the measure as experimental and said, "You have no right to experiment with the poorest of the poor, and put on them a heavy burden by way of expenditure."
  Mr. LYTTELTONindicated dissent.
  Mr. CAWLEY: The right hon. Gentleman said, "You have no right to make this experiment," I agree with him in the sense that the giving of undoubted benefits to those who are the poorest of the poor is an experiment, but it is proposed in order to see whether that is sufficient or not. To my mind there is no harm in trying to benefit these people with the object of ascertaining whether what is being done is sufficient. That is quite a different thing from imposing a heavy burden on them by way of experiment. There is a complete misapprehension as to what is to happen under the Bill. Under this Clause one thing is certain, and that is that the deposit contributors, man for man, get the same money value as others. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the Clause because some part of the 9d. is to be taken to pay into friendly societies. Under the

  835
  Bill not a halfpenny paid on behalf of the deposit contributors goes to a friendly society. Every halfpenny paid into the deposit scheme is paid out for the deposit scheme and to nobody else. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is forfeited."] That is another misrepresentation. On the death of a deposit contributor his accumulations are forfeited. What for? For the benefit of the other deposit contributors. Every halfpenny is used for the benefit of the deposit contributors. Taking the thing on an average—and every scheme deals with averages—for every 4d. the depositor pays he gets 9d. worth of benefit. You talk about the medical examination excluding people from medical benefit. Who will be excluded? People suffering from consumption or likely to suffer from consumption. The sanatorium benefit is to be paid for out of the scheme as a whole, and if more people as deposit contributors come in for sanatorium benefit than under the rest of the scheme, then they are given more. I think that the point as to the medical examination excluding most of them has been very grossly exaggerated. Doctors are not infallible. I do not think that they can say as a whole which men are going to come on the expense. What they can say is which men are likely to die. Such men are bad lives. They may exclude heart disease and consumption, but neither of those will bear hardly upon the particular society because the particular society does not pay for its own members. The sanatorium benefit is under the Bill as a whole. Therefore I think that the hon. Member for Pontefract was perfectly right in saying that a great many societies will be found which will not impose any medical test at all. If they do exclude those consumptives then they will be able to get just as good sanatorium benefit as deposit contributors as they would under the rest of the scheme. For every two weeks' contribution a man would be entitled, as I work it out, to one year's sanatorium benefit. Therefore these men are getting more sanatorium benefits than members of the societies.
  There is one point where it may be said these people gain to a certain extent over others. Under any scheme of insurance you must have arrears, and you must have provision for a certain amount of arrears. I, and I expect other Members of this House, have received representations that under this scheme the people who are worst off are the poor men who are badly
  836
  employed and therefore run into arrears and get no benefit from their contributions. A great deal has been made of their case, and I believe rightly made of it; but those men are better off under a deposit scheme than they are under the rest of the scheme. They, at any rate, get full value for all that they pay in. I do not mean that depositors will be very numerous under this Bill. The provisions of the Bill are so much more generous than those that are usual with friendly society schemes that they will not be as big a body as they would be if they came in under a friendly society scheme, but it seems to me that the class of man who is very much unemployed, and therefore, if in a friendly society, would be apt to get into arrears, and get no benefit, under this scheme will get full value for any money paid, and will be far better off as a deposit contributor than he would be under a friendly society. For that reason it seems to me that the position of the deposit contributor is nothing like so bad as it has been made out. I admit that he is not insured, but he will get as much and probably more money value than is given under the rest of the scheme.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

RAILWAY COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS AND RETURNS) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Eleven o'clock.

  Crown Property (Ireland).
  Crown Property (Ireland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES OFFICIALS.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES OFFICIALS.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  University Revenues (Ireland).
  University Revenues (Ireland).
  Coronation Medal.
  Coronation Medal.
  Special Army Reserve.
  Special Army Reserve.
  Sessions Judges (Punjab).
  Sessions Judges (Punjab).
  Self-Governing Dominions (Commercial Treaties).
  Self-Governing Dominions (Commercial Treaties).
  Crown Foreshore Rights, Seaview, Isle of Wight.
  Crown Foreshore Rights, Seaview, Isle of Wight.
  Telegraph Messengers (Remuneration).
  Telegraph Messengers (Remuneration).
  Cost of Living.
  Cost of Living.
  Post Office Stores Branch (Dublin).
  Post Office Stores Branch (Dublin).
Preamble
The Lord CONGLETON—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MAXWELL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill intituled an Act to dissolve the marriage of Josephine Turner Maxwell, of Crinken Abbey, Shankill, in the County of Dublin, with Henry Pendleton Maxwell, her husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the decree of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland: Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Telegraph (Construction).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

COMMONS REGULATION (WINTON AND KABER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (WINTON AND KABER)PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

STONEHAVEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland), and reported from the Committee. (No. 200.)

TRIBUTES TO LORD ONSLOW AND LORD JAMES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, before beginning public business I am sure it will be the desire of the House that we should take regretful note of the
10
fact that since the House rose for the holidays two valued and important members of this House have disappeared from among us. Lord James and Lord Onslow differed in many qualities, and they differed in the range of their public; activities, but they have both left behind them kind, friendly, and warmly appreciative recollections and memories.
Lord Onslow was the bearer of a name which has been familiar in our Parliamentary history since the days of Queen Elizabeth. One of the bearers of that name was for thirty-three years, in five successive Parliaments, Speaker of the House of Commons, and when his time came to an end in 1761 the House of Commons passed a vote thanking him for his constant and unwearied attendance. The Lord Onslow that we all knew and so much liked was not so long in the chair of the Lord Chairman, but he was there quite long enough to show this House and all who are concerned in the business of the House his fidelity to the trust that had been committed to him. The noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) said when Lord Onslow resigned—my own experience is too short for me to speak adequately on the matter—that your Lordships had never known a Chairman more attentive and more assiduous in the performance of his duties. Lord Onslow held various offices—some higher and some lower—with ability and diligence. For a time he discharged the duties of the Governor of an important Colony with credit, honour, and complete success. In the Chair, judging from my own comparatively limited experience, he carried weight because of his strong sense of fair play and his desire to give every opportunity that was lair and legitimate to opinions and points of view which he did not himself share, but which he felt had a right to utterance in the House. His own opinions were strong and decided—perhaps he did not always conceal them—but there was about Lord Onslow's polities a geniality which well became the post he filled and from which lie never departed. This may be noted, that nothing could exceed his willingness to help every member of the House. The noble Marquess said that it could not be doubted that, Lord Onslow in the last days of his life had aggravated the mischief from which he was suffering by his perseverance in the duties of the post which he occupied. I am sure

11
everybody will feel admiration for his character and his work. The regret is universal at his loss; so, too, is universal the recognition and appreciation both of his character and of what he did in the House. He had learned. I think, some of the special duties of the post of Lord Chairman when he was a member of the London County Council. In all the details of private business, which we on these red benches see and hear little of, his experience on that body gave him a great advantage, and he used that advantage to the full.
Then I come to Lord James. He had, we all know, a great career in what I make bold to call the most powerful of professions. In the course of that career he won a seat in the House of Commons, and he there achieved a speedy and a marked success. He had been trained, and highly trained, in the art of honourable advocacy, and he showed that proficiency in the art of advocacy—there are at this moment many examples to confirm the view—is not in the least incompatible with Parliamentary gifts. Let me recall—I am sure the noble and learned Earl opposite (Lord Halsbury) will recall—with what skill and good temper Lord James conducted through the House of Commons an extremely difficult and complex Bill—the memorable Bill against corrupt electoral practices. In this House it did not fall to him to pilot any great measure of that dimension, but whenever he addressed the House it always struck me that he addressed it in a tone of deliberation. Although it may seem strange to say it, it has always struck me that the tone of deliberation is not the commonest of things in deliberative Assemblies—not always in Parliament, not always in administrative and executive bodies, and perhaps not always even in Cabinets. Lord James had that tone of deliberation. One felt that he was trying to impress the House with the very arguments which had convinced him in the formation of his own judgment.
I pass to another point. In political life, with all its tremendous difficulties and tremendous temptations, it does not matter much more what opinions a man holds than with what steadfastness and straightforwardness he holds them. Lord James was a model of clear opinions firmly held. It is unfortunately too well known to many of us that in our generation—and here
12
I am speaking of my own, which is longer than that of many members of the House—there have been three great divisions of opinion and of action among Parliamentary leaders, and three great divisions in the political mind of the country. Friends have been severed, Party cohesion has been broken, and the political hearts of men have been shaken. On all these severe and testing occasions neither of the two great Parties in the State has been wanting in fine and conspicuous examples of personal disinterestedness and personal self-sacrifice. Of these manifold cases I know none more admirable than the case of Lord James. He had within his hand the highest prizes, whether of his professional or his political career, and all the natural impulses of a perfectly legitimate ambition in Lord James gave way to his sense—right or wrong—of public responsibility. He was one of those—and I knew him well—who thought none of these prizes, important as they are, more enviable than the prize of the attachment of his colleagues and the general esteem of his countrymen.
So much for Lord James's public traits. I think I should be wrong if I left out this private trait. He was always on the look out, keenly on the look out, to help younger men at the Bar, men with no high connection and with small prospects—he was always keen to hold out to them such a helping hand as a great and tried lawyer can hold out to an untried one with his life before him. But beyond this generous readiness of professional help his sympathies were very wide and ever generous; indeed, I might say from knowledge that he was not only generous but sometimes what might have been thought even lavish. He was very careful always not to let his left hand know all his right hand was doing in this field. Of him, who might have been Lord Chancellor, it is not too much to say that he lived in the spirit of a famous saying of the greatest of our Lord Chancellors, Lord Bacon—"The nobler a soul is, the more objects of compassion it hath." We are living, as we know to our cost, in an age and in an hour of deep commotion in respect to the institutions of our country; but, after all, w hen we look at the foundations of things, what matters more than anything else is that our leading men, whether they be Lords of Parliament or men in homelier stations, who work these institutions should be men of sterling character. I submit,

13
and I am sure the whole House will agree, that the two men whom we regretfully commemorate this evening were of a sound and sterling character such as has never been surpassed by any of those who have held high place within the walls of this House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can add very little to what has been said by the noble Viscount of the two distinguished members of this House whose deaths we are lamenting this evening. They happened to be both political allies and colleagues of us who sit on this side of the House, and political opponents of the noble Viscount, but I am sure I express the feelings of those who sit around me when I say that we could not have desired a more fitting or appropriate tribute to be paid to the memory of Lord James of Hereford and of Lord Onslow than that to which we have just listened. The noble Viscount said, I think with great truth, that the two men were of very different types; their careers were different, their personal characteristics were different, and the spheres of their activities were different, but they were both of them men whom any Legislative Assembly might well have been proud to number amongst its members.
Lord James of Hereford fought his way to the foremost rank without any adventitious aids, he fought his way to a foremost place in his profession, and to a not less prominent place in our political life. The noble Viscount has spoken of his high position at the Bar, and I will add nothing to what he said on that point, except with regard to one fact to which he referred—that at a particular moment Lord James had within his grasp the greatest prize to which a lawyer can aspire, almost the greatest prize to which any subject of the Crown may aspire, and that he forwent that prize because at that particular moment while his interests pointed one way his convictions pointed in an opposite direction. That one fact appears to me to establish all that we desire to establish with regard to Lord James's high character and reputation. In the House of Commons he was always a conspicuous figure. He delivered speeches there which are still remembered by those who had the advantage of hearing them. In connection with his political career I cannot resist, as one who feels
14
a deep reverence for the memory of the late Duke of Devonshire, referring to the fact that throughout his long political career a man so strong, so full of sterling qualities, and so keen a judge of men as the late Duke of Devonshire should have always regarded Lord James as one of his most intimate friends and counsellors. In this House we always listened to him as to one speaking with an authority to which few members could pretend. His career was a long one, representing considerably more than half a century of public service of the most useful and meritorious description unbroken by any interval of idleness.
Lord Onslow became a member of this House by inheritance when he was quite a young man. He owed his opportunities to what is sometimes—not always felicitously—called the "accident of birth." No doubt he inherited with his high position a certain aptitude for the kind of public business which at different times he was called upon to perform. He served art apprenticeship in more than one public Department, and left behind him in each of them a great reputation for industry, ability, and knowledge of men. He was called to represent the Crown in one of our great Colonies, where I believe I am right in saying he is even to-day remembered with the greatest affection, and not only by men of his own race, but by that native community in whose welfare he so deeply interested himself. In the Department of Agriculture he found himself called to a post the duties of which were specially congenial to him. I doubt whether it would have been possible to find a Minister more likely from his antecedents and personal qualities to command the full confidence of the three classes interested in the land of the country, whether owners, occupiers, or tillers of the soil. He had a practical knowledge of agricultural affairs enabling him to deal with success with problems the business side of which is not always sufficiently borne in mind. This House paid to Lord Onslow the greatest compliment that it can pay to one of its members when it called upon him to assume the duties of Chairman. I do not think the noble Viscount said a word more than was proper and necessary when he spoke of the absolute fairness, good temper, and geniality which characterised his performance of the duties of Lord Chairman;

15
and what I venture to say of Lord Onslow in that respect also has reference to the manner in which he performed the much more exacting duties which fall upon the Lord Chairman in connection with the private business of this House which takes place outside the walls of the Chamber in which we are sitting to-day.
If time permitted, I should have been glad to say a word of the way in which Lord Onslow filled his position as a great country gentleman, and of his interest in all local and municipal questions, but I only mention one other point which I think ought not to be passed by without a word of notice this evening—I mean the pains which Lord Onslow took to bring members of this House together in private deliberation and consultation in regard to the business of the House. He was instrumental in creating opportunities for most useful discussion of that sort, which, owing to the peculiar conditions under which our work is done, come to us, I am afraid, somewhat too rarely. In one of the obituary notices which appeared on the day after his death it was said that Lord Onslow had been described by a Colonial authority as "a good straight English gentleman of the best type." We may be sure that Lord Onslow would have desired no better epitaph, nor would any of us, I suppose, desire any other words to be spoken of us when we are no longer there to hear them. It is as a good straight Englishman of the best type that we shall always remember Lord Onslow and always regret him.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if I rise to say a word or two on the subject which has occupied your Lordships' attention this evening it is because I can claim with the late Lord James a friendship of more than fifty years, during which, both in political life and in the Courts of Law, we have been opponents more often than we have been together. I can say truthfully of Lord James of Hereford that, whether in political or forensic life, I have never met a more honourable and straightforward opponent. That I have been his opponent more often than with him is accident, of course. Although I have not been always of the same politics as he was, that fact never at any time interfered with our friendship; indeed, when Lord James's seat in Parliament was assailed by petition I had the honour of aiding and assisting
16
him to retain the seat which he so much adorned afterwards. I concur also with what was said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House with reference to Lord James's conduct of the Corrupt Practices Act, a most wholesome and useful measure, which was brought to a successful issue by the skill with which he conducted it. Your Lordships know how well the public career of Lord James deserved the graceful encomiums which were passed upon it by the noble Viscount, but there was a side of his character with which none but his intimate friends became familiar. A more generous and kindhearted man never lived. No case in which the suffering and the poor were engaged failed to obtain his assistance when it was sought. No case of suffering or poverty of any sort or kind wanting assistance failed to obtain it from him when he was satisfied that the case was real. I think it is right that this should be said of Lord James's private character, as it was known by those among whom he lived and by whom he is most mourned.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions as to Collisions, & c.
1.—(1) Where by the fault of two or more vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault:
Provided that—

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

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

17

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

(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "freight" includes passage money and chartered hire.
(3) Subsection (9) of section twenty-five of the Judicature Act, 1873, shall cease to have effect, and the provisions of this section shall be applied in all cases heard and determined in any Court having jurisdiction to deal with the case.
LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to move the omission of subsection (3). This is really only a drafting Amendment, as it is proposed to insert this subsection in a somewhat more general form in Clause 8 so as to make the scope of the Bill quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 11 to 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I feel some diffidence in moving the Amendment which stands in my name, which is to leave out Clause 1 of this Bill. The reason why I venture to move its omission is not so much because I think that the clause will, after your Lordships have heard what is to be said about it, be struck out, but because I think that in these international matters and in anything affecting the question of commerce and shipping it is extremely desirable that the facts should be put before your Lordships. In that way you will be able to see whether the advantages to be gained by the retention of this clause, which I think I may say is practically the vital clause of the Bill, overwhelm and outweigh such objections as have been felt with regard to the proposition which it establishes.
This clause has for its object the making of damage or loss caused in consequence of a collision between two or more vessels fall upon the owners of those vessels in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault, and that is a matter which I think I shall show gives rise to considerable difficulty in its actual working
18
out. If the clause were omitted the present law of England would apply. I will state that law in one moment. But think it is necessary to state at the outset of the few observations which I shall make that very great confusion in maritime laws has prevailed in connection with the subject of what should be the division of loss when two vessels, or more vessels, which is extremely rare, come into collision and do damage to each other and the cargoes on board them. For many years conferences have been at work, of which think those collected together by the International Maritime Committee have been most effective. I ought perhaps to say that the Governments of the various countries all over the world—there may be sonic exceptions, but substantially the whole of the great nations of the world—ultimately met, through their representatives, and produced, after, I think, two or more years of meetings, a Code which is now one of the Codes on this subject which have to be considered for adoption.
There have been four Codes. Two of them have been adopted by the representatives of His Majesty's Government. One of them is the Code on which arises the question of collisions between ships; the other has reference to the question of salvage rendered at sea by one vessel to another. There are two other Codes still in process of negotiation and discussion—Codes for the purpose of declaring what shall be the limits of liability of vessels and their owners, and what shall be the liens and claims upon them and how those liens and claims shall rank. So far those latter two have not produced sufficient uniformity in the Congresses to be adopted by His Majesty's Government. The two, however, which form the subject of the present Bill have; and in order to appreciate precisely the effect and the advantages or disadvantages of them, I think your Lordships should be in possession of the various forms or leading forms in which these questions of liability for collisions have been dealt with. You should know how much uniformity has been obtained and what are the advantages to be gained, and also the disadvantages which I suggest have from one point of view to be taken into account.
Before 1875, when the Judicature Act came into force in this country, the English Common Law and the Admiralty Law of

19
England differed. By the English Common Law, where two vessels collided and there was a blame on both of them the loss was allowed to rest where it fell. In cases where both vessels contributed to the disaster one could not recover against the other. But the Admiralty rule had for two or three centuries been that where two vessels collided and both were in fault the owners had to divide between them the total loss which had happened and each bear one-half of it. That was founded on earlier decisions and gradually came to be the rule of the Admiralty. In 1875, however, the Judicature Act was passed, and though at first it was intended to adopt the Common Law rule, finally it was the Admiralty rule which was adopted, and the Judicature Act provided that that rule should prevail throughout the country. Therefore both at Common Law and in Admiralty the rule became one and the same. That rule, which divided the loss, works very satisfactorily, and there was, as far as I can make out, no substantial grievance at all in the effect of its operation.
What grievance there was, which I think led to the acceptance of these proposals in England, was that the Statute which regulated navigation provided that, if any of the Collision Regulations were infringed, that infringement should of itself lead to the condemnation of the vessel that infringed them, unless it was proved that a departure from the Regulations was necessary. The result of the application of this rule of both vessels being held to blame was this. There were cases in which the real substantial negligence was on the part of one vessel, but because there had been some breach—a very trifling breach, it may be, and not necessarily conducing to the collision—on the part of the other vessel, that vessel was also held in fault and the division of loss equally took place. One of the clauses in this Bill does away with that liability for a breach of the Collision Regulations. It is Clause 4, which provides that subsection (4) of Section 419 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (which provides that a ship shall be deemed in fault in a case of collision where any of the Collision Regulations have been infringed by that ship) is hereby repealed; and so the real difficulty which was raised by that presumption and the hardship which it produced is to be done away with. If that were done away with and nothing else were done, and
20
the present rule remained as it is, it would be necessary, and it is thought reasonable that it should be necessary, to prove, in cases where both vessels were to blame, that their fault in each case contributed to the collision; so that that clause by itself would remove what I believe was the only grievance in this country prior to the present time.
In other countries there were three leading systems—I will state them very briefly in order that this particular clause may be appreciated—of assessing damage where two vessels were to blame. The first was that the damage should rest where it fell. As I have already stated, that was in force at Common Law in England until 1875. Up to that time, and I believe up to the present, that rule had been the rule in the United States of America on its Common Law side, though not on its Admiralty side. It was also the rule in Germany up till recent times. I believe in 1906 they adopted the principle which is now indicated in this new proposal. It was the rule in Holland, in Italy, in Russia usually, in Spain, in the Argentine Federation, in Uruguay, in Venezuela, and in some other countries. Substantially one may say that in a number of countries the rule was that the damage should rest where it fell, and neither could recover from the other. In other countries the gross damage was divided equally and borne by the two respective shipowners. That was so in Great Britain, in her Colonies, and on the Admiralty side in the United States of America; and I think I am correct in saying that the probability is that there were more cases under that rule than under any other, as the shipping of Great Britain and her Colonies was so enormous and the Admiralty Court was so generally resorted to. The third leading rule adopted was that the gross damage should be apportioned between the owners according to the degree of the blame of the vessels. That rule has been adopted in Belgium, in France, in Greece, in Portugal, in Germany, by the Scandinavian States, and also in Roumania. So far I have been dealing with damages that have happened to ships. There was a fourth form of leading rule—the whole of the damages appear to have been put together and a sort of general average made of those damages according to the value of the vessels which were in collision. But that only applied, I believe, in Turkey and in

21
Egypt, in their international and native tribunals. Where the case was one of the cargo's position, matters were more complicated and the practice differed in the various countries. The rule as to life claims also differs, and the Code which the Conference adopted, and which this Bill proposes to assist in adopting generally, was intended to do away with this confusion. In the rules applied in Great Britain and in Admiralty cases in the United States, as I have said, the division of loss was equal; it was simple and easy of application, and the only grievance felt—I believe I am correct—was that the statutory fault was too severe a penalty.
I turn again to the proposal which is before the House in this Bill. It is that the loss should be in proportion to the degree of fault in which each vessel was found to blame. The point to which I wish to draw attention is this, that this clause endeavours to establish a form of liability which it is practically impossible to apply with any degree of accuracy. Consider for a moment the case of a collision between two vessels and whether one can say the precise proportion of fault on those vessels which led to the collision. It is, I think—and in this I have the authority of Judges of the Admiralty Court in former days—practically impossible; and the older Judges in the Admiralty Division, or the Admiralty Court as it then was, got rid of all that difficulty by declaring that no human being could say how much blame was to be attached to each of the vessels. They therefore adopted the rule that if both contributed to the collision each should bear half the loss, and that has been the English rule.
I have stated that the rule has been different in a great many other countries, and given the three leading classes of rule which have been adopted. I venture to suggest that there are these considerations. First of all, with regard to the rule now proposed in this clause, that no one can properly say what is the proportion or degree of fault which should fall upon a particular vessel. It is not a rule which can be worked practically, except by what has been done, as I understand, on the Continent. A note has there been circulated to the effect that in "both to blame" cases ninety per cent. of those cases have been divided by the Judges equally—
22
that is to say. in ninety per cent. of the cases where both vessels were to blame the Judges have been unable, as no human being, I think, is able, to divide the loss in proportion to the fault. Consequently they have jumped it, as our old Admiralty Judges did, by saying each pays half. There is a second point which, having had some experience in the Admiralty Court, I should like to bring forward. I do not think it is desirable that a Judge should be placed, as it were, simply in an arbitrator's position in which he has to make a rough-and-ready shot as to blame. In my opinion this would tend to weakness of decision. The third point is this. I do not see how it is possible for the same case tried by one tribunal and then appealed against to necessarily result in the same decision on appeal—that is to say, I do not see how two men will necessarily come to the same conclusion on the question of proportion of fault, or how there is to be any definite certainty of decision.
I have called attention to these points because I attach importance to them. The difficulty that I feel is this. I have throughout had some connection with the proposals and discussions which have led to these Conventions. I have ventured always to maintain this attitude about this particular rule of division. But one cannot avoid saying this, that this is an international matter, and it is very desirable to have a uniform rule applicable all over the high seas. All the countries who were signatories to the Convention have, I believe, agreed to the adoption of this proportionate rule. Some of them, as I have shown, had that proportionate rule in operation long before. There has also been a feeling amongst a large section in England that it is an advantageous rule to have, and I do not think I can say that in the objections I have stated I have had that support which resists a general agreement in favour of uniformity. The result, therefore, comes to this. You have, on the one hand, the great desire for uniformity of the law all Over the ocean; you have an agreement by the nations which will produce that uniformity; and you have, as against that, the objections which I have stated. While probably your Lordships will think that, the advantages of uniformity. outweigh the objections I have suggested, I have felt it a duty that one who has had a great deal to do with these cases should state the objections so that the House

23
should be in full possession of the general considerations applicable to this question before coming to a definite conclusion upon it.
I would only add that there is very little else except machinery in this Bill. That is to say, there is very little else in the two Conventions which this Bill proposes to ratify except the difficulty that arises on this clause. I have stated the objections to the clause so that your Lordships should know the objections as well as the great advantages that arise from adopting a rule which will enable all nations to act upon the same basis. If that rule were not adopted, I doubt very much whether these Conventions would be agreed to at all. I beg to formally move my Amendment to leave out Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I need hardly say that I feel the greatest diffidence in rising to discuss this subject with so great an authority as the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed the House, but at the same time I am encouraged by the attitude which he adopted towards the Bill in general, and also by the invariable fairness which he displays and by his readiness to listen to and give consideration to views which are not exactly in accordance with his own. The noble and learned Lord has stated the three principal rules which had to be considered before this Convention was signed—that is to say, the Common Law rule, the Admiralty rule, and the proportional rule; and I will endeavour very shortly to tell your Lordships what induced the Board of Trade to adopt the proportional rule which is introduced in this Bill.
The Common Law rule, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, lays down that the loss in the case of a collision where both vessels are to blame lies where it falls. This Common Law rule, generally speaking, may be found to work extremely well; but there is certainly ground for considering it unsuitable in connection with shipping matters where very large sums are involved, and where the circumstances attending the case are very often peculiar. It may, for instance, be fair enough that a man who is knocked down by a motor-
24
car should not receive compensation if he contributed to the accident by his own negligence. But let us take the case of a collision where both ships were to blame and were one ship suffers damage to the extent of many thousands of pounds and the other ship escapes with the loss, perhaps, of a little paint. Under the Common Law rule the whole of the loss would fall upon the one ship, although the fault lay at the door of both ships. There was also this fact to be taken into consideration, that Parliament deliberately rejected this rule in favour of the Admiralty rule at the time of the passing of the Judicature Act of 1873, and there is no reason for supposing that the various interests concerned would welcome so great a reversal of the present system as would be involved if a return were made to the Common Law rule. There therefore remain the two other rules—the Admiralty rule, which at present obtains under English law, where the aggregate of loss is divided and each vessel pays one-half, and the rule which is proposed in this Bill. I may say that this question was very thoroughly examined into and all the criticisms were considered by the Board before they agreed to the Convention.
Perhaps it would be as well to allude to the principal criticisms in order to show how the Board arrived at its conclusions. The first criticism was that this proportional rule was not founded on principle. I think that to a certain extent this is true, but one might suppose that those who advanced this argument in order to retain the present rule—the Admiralty rule—were under the impression that the Admiralty rule was founded on principle. This I do not think anybody could maintain, for it has been known for many years as rusticum judicium, a rough-and-ready form of justice. On the other hand, there does seem to be in the proportional rule a certain amount of what one might, perhaps, call principle, in the fact that the proportional rule endeavours to make the greater sinner pay the greater penalty. But the principal criticism which has been addressed to this proposal is that it is impossible for a Court to fix the exact amount of fault attached to each vessel, and that the proportional rule will lead to weak judgments. The noble and learned Lord who has just addressed your Lordships stated that this proportional rule does already obtain in certain foreign

25
countries, and he also alluded to the fact that in those countries ninety per cent. of the cases were decided on the half-and-half division. In this Bill a distinct provision is made which allows the Court to give a half-and-half decision where it cannot arrive at a conclusion as to what is the proportion of the damage. Ninety per cent. of these cases being decided on the half-and-half division, we are left with a very small minority where presumably the fault of one of the vessels was so very much greater than that of the other that the Judge had no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to how the proportion should be assigned. It is, of course, impossible to expect Courts to work out the proportion of blame with mathematical accuracy, but at any rate the provisions of this clause do admit of some differentiation being made where the greater culpability of one vessel is flagrant and proved beyond all doubt.
I might, perhaps, give one instance of the sort of case in which this proportional division might be applied. In the Shipping Gazette of March 14, 1899, a collision was reported between the "India" and "Hopper No. 5." The President of the Admiralty Division, in delivering judgment that both vessels were to blame, said it was impossible to justify the "Hopper's" conduct in endeavouring to cross the "India's" bows in the way attempted. The main cause of the collision was the conduct of the "Hopper," but the advice of the Trinity Masters was that the "India" had committed an error of judgment. In those circumstances, though he said it with some regret, the President of the Admiralty Division held that he could not disregard the advice which the Trinity Masters had given him, and must hold the "India" to blame. That was a case in which obviously it was with the greatest reluctance that the half-and-half division was applied, and a certain number of similar cases occur from time to time. One other criticism which was brought against this proposal was that the rule would lead to more litigation and to more appeals. This is a question upon which I, personally, am not at liberty to say very much, as I really know nothing concerning that particular point. At the same time it is a question which it is difficult to decide until we have had some experience to show us what really will be the result. It has been said that this proportional rule will
26
give some inducement to contest a case in the hope of escaping with a minority of the damages; but against that one must consider the fact that under the present rule there is certainly an inducement to contest a case in the hope that by the fact of the other vessel being found guilty of some small error of judgment she should have to bear one-half of the damages.
Apart altogether from the points to which I have alluded, I should like to say one word with regard to the general aspects of the case. This clause, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, is of vital importance to the Bill. In fact, I think he said that it was practically the only thing which there was in the Bill. I was glad that he said that, for this reason. I think the fact of the Bill containing as little as he says shows that these two Conventions which were signed last year are practically an affirmation, or at any rate chiefly an affirmation, with the exception which he mentioned, of our own law. The Salvage Convention is entirely an affirmation. Therefore I think we have some cause for congratulation from that point of view. Again, I think it would he impossible to under-estimate the immense advantages which would be gained from a unification of maritime law, could such an end be attained. The omission of this clause and the consequent loss of the Bill would undoubtedly retard to a very considerable degree the progress which has been made in the direction of this object, which is so greatly to be desired.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has moved this Amendment has had considerable experience in the particular matters with which we are now engaged, and I confess that I should differ from him with very great difficulty and doubt. If one had had no experience oneself, I think one would feel that one ought to treat such experience as his with very great respect. But there is much to be said for his reasoning apart from the great value of his experience. Imagine the position of a Judge who has to try the question, not only of the merits between the parties, but the question of the proportion of negligence. It is not the proportion of damage done, but the proportion of negligence. The Judge has to consider some error in navigation on both sides and then try to reduce that into the question of damages to see how much

27
one side ought to pay and how much the other. I confess that that seems to me to introduce a question of great difficulty. The authors of this Bill seem to have been quite aware of that, for there is a provision that if the Judge cannot decide the proportion of negligence then he may divide it between the two. It is to be remembered that all these rules, if they do not follow natural justice, acquire a value through being the known rules, and I think there ought to be very considerable advantage established before Parliament departs from known rules. That which most of all makes litigation expensive and difficult is that people should not know what the law is. Very often when one of these difficult problems comes up for discussion it is said, "Oh, let the Judges settle it." I do not think that is fair upon the Judges, and I should like very much to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to say upon the question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, as regards the last observation of the noble and learned Earl, I very heartily agree with him. I have had occasion to point out before that not infrequently in your Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament when Members really cannot make up their minds as to what ought to be done in a difficult contingency, they say, "Oh, these words will do";—very often the words are the result of a compromise—"we will leave it to the Judges to decide"; and when the Judge, without any definite guidance, proceeds to put the best construction he can upon the enactment, he finds himself roundly abused for the gross injustice of his decision. As regards what the noble and learned Earl said on that point, I entirely agree.
The particular matter which is now before the House is, of course, very important, because it affects the shipping of this country, and this is by far the greatest shipowning country in the world. I think it is a very good thing that this matter has been brought forward. It is a principle of great importance. My noble and learned friend Lord Gorell has rendered most kind and valuable service to the Government in regard to this and other kindred subjects, and also he is certainly the first authority in this country, and probably one of the first authorities anywhere, upon this matter. The way it strikes me is this. You have to deal with the case of a
28
collision. Suppose that you are asked, irrespective of whether you can carry out the principle or not, what is the ideal principle. I suppose the principle embodied in this Bill—namely, that you should apportion the amount of damage to be paid to the amount of negligence—would be accepted as ideal. It sounds perfect. It has all the delightful flavour of ideal equity, and it is logical if logic is dissociated from facts. It commends itself undoubtedly to many wise men on the Continent and also to many people here. The difficulty is in carrying it out. You now have a rule, good or bad, which is defective in some ways, but upon the whole works well—the rule worked by our Court of Admiralty, by which you divide the loss. At all events, that gives people a standard by which they know how to measure what they have to do, and in most cases it is perfectly fair. It has that advantage. If you go to the other rule, and say that you are to apportion the loss according to the degree of fault, you find it most difficult. In the first place, you introduce a new element in litigation—namely, as to damages—and the next thing is that you really cannot say in many cases what is the proper proportion, Is one captain two-thirds more to blame than the other captain, or is it three-fourths? It leads to endless speculation, and it is a difficult, problem to solve, as you really have no standard of guidance.
My consolation is this. I believe that, in accordance with the power reserved in this Bill, in nine cases out of ten, perhaps in nineteen cases out of twenty, the old rule will be observed, and the loss divided upon the ground that the Judge will say he really cannot be sure which of the two is the more to blame. I believe that will very often happen. But I do admit also that there may be cases—I think Lord Gorell with his immense experience will agree—in which the blame is almost nominal on the one side and the real substantial blame is on the other. In that sort of case you can say, "I think nearly all this ought to be borne by the one vessel." Perhaps in that case it may work out more equitable. I think the thing is fairly balanced between the old rule and the new. Certainly there is no injustice in the new proposal in this Bill. There are a great many people in this country who are strongly in favour of the new proposal. There is no doubt about

29
that. There are a great many people who can show cases in which the existing rule has been very hard upon one ship. In those circumstances, since this has immense support here and is most strongly supported outside this country, we do not really lose anything. I think that on the whole it will work quite fairly, and therefore I was glad to notice that my noble and learned friend did not obstinately resist the first clause, but rather thought, as a counsel of perfection, it might be better to remain as we are. I hope my noble and learned friend will not persist in his Amendment. Probably most people in this country think the change is good. Certainly it is the result of a Maritime Convention to which all other parts of the world agree.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am very much convinced by the arguments to which we have just listened from the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor, but I venture to ask him whether the Bill as now drafted exactly accords with those arguments. What I understood the Lord Chancellor to suggest was that as a general rule the equal apportionment of the damage between the two offending ships was the reasonable solution of the difficulty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will usually be adopted.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will usually be adopted; but that in exceptional cases, where blame obviously inclined one way or the other, it was desirable that the Court should have the power of not dividing the damages equally, but making the balance incline more heavily On the one side than on the other. That seems to me a reasonable suggestion. But when I turn to the Bill itself, I find that in Clause 1 it is distinctly stated that the general rule is to be the rule of apportionment in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was in fault, and then the Bill proceeds to give a proviso that in certain cases where it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault the liability should be apportioned equally. It seems to me that the Bill puts the exception where the noble and learned Earl puts the rule, and the rule where the noble and learned Earl puts the exception. I do not know if it is worth considering whether any improvement in the drafting might not be possible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It really comes to the same thing. The rule that is wanted is the rule to apportion the damage according to the blame. That is done in the clause. Then it is provided that if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to, establish different degrees of fault the liability shall be apportioned equally. What I said, or meant to say, was that in theory the first is right, but in practice you will find you cannot do it in many cases. I believe that in ninety cases out of a hundred you will find that the old rule will in fact be applied in virtue of the proviso.
LORD GORELL: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl, the Lord Chancellor, I propose to withdraw the Amendment. My main object was that your Lordships should be fully possessed of the various points before agreeing to the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Damages for Personal Injuries [Collisions, Art. 4 (3).]
2. Where personal injuries are suffered by any person on board a vessel owing to the fault of that vessel and of any other vessel or vessels, the vessels shall be jointly and severally liable for the damages:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right of defence on which, independently of this section, he might have relied in an action brought against him by the person injured, or shall affect the right of any person to limit his liability in cases to which this section relates in the manner provided by law.
LORD GORELL*LORD GORELL moved to insert the words "loss of life or "before" personal injuries" at the commencement of the clause. The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which I propose is quite a small one, but it is of considerable importance in view of what comes later. This clause provides that where personal injuries are suffered by any person on board a vessel owing to the fault of that vessel and of any other vessel or vessels, the vessels shall be jointly and severally liable for the damages; but it is confined at present to the ease of personal injuries. I understand that it was believed that personal injury claims were subject to the same rule of proportional division as

31
I have explained. My Own view is that that is not correct, and I believe the opinion has been strongly entertained that there is no such rule of division in the case of bodily injuries. The provision I have read is put into the Bill here for the purpose of making clear that the rule dividing the damage is not to apply in the case of bodily injuries. Loss of life, too, is clearly a matter entirely outside the scope of any Admiralty rule. It was a matter in respect of which a claim could be made under Lord Campbell's Act. That Act enabled an action to be brought by the personal representatives of a person deceased by negligence, and compensation for that loss to be recovered against any person who was to blame, and therefore it could be recovered both jointly and severally. It may not be strictly necessary to insert the words "loss of life" here, but I think it is necessary when one comes to the further clauses of the Bill. Certainly there can be no harm in stating that in respect of loss of life the owners of the vessels shall be jointly and severally liable. If your Lordships turn to Clause 3, you will find that it is in accordance with the scheme of these Conventions that if one owner is sued and pays the whole of the loss in respect of loss of life or personal injuries, he may turn round on his co-wrongdoer and get from him a contribution in proportion to the degree of fault. I think it is desirable that Clause 3 should have intelligibility given to it by Clause 2 being amended in the way I suggest.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 15, after ("where") insert ("loss of life or").—Lord Gorell.
LORD HERSCHELL: This certainly seems an improvement to the clause. The Board of Trade are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the trouble he has taken in this matter, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: The object of the next Amendment and of several others which I shall propose later is to avoid as far as possible the use of terms personifying a vessel. The wording of the Bill was adopted in order to follow as closely as possible the wording of the Convention, and the use of language personifying a vessel has to some extent a precedent in
32
the wording of the Judicature Act, 1873; but Lord Gorell has pointed out to the Board of Trade that the wording in the Bill in several cases goes beyond these precedents. Consequently these Amendments have been put down so as to avoid, as far as possible, language which may be regarded as too colloquial.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 17, after the first ("vessels") insert ("the liability of the owners of") and leave out ("jointly and severally") and insert ("joint and several").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out ("liable for the damages").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: The next Amendment standing in my name is consequential on the introduction of the words "loss of life or."
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 22, after ("injured") insert ("or any person or persons entitled to sue in respect of such loss of life").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Right of Contribution. [Collisions, Art. 4 (3).]
3. Where loss of life or personal injuries are suffered by any person on board a vessel owing to the fault of that vessel and any other vessel or vessels, and a proportion of the damages is recovered against one of the vessels which exceeds the proportion in which she was in fault, she may recover the amount of the excess from the other vessel or vessels to the extent to which they were respectively in fault:
Provided that no amount shall be so recovered from a vessel which could not by reason of any statutory or contractual limitation of, or exemption from, liability, or which could not for any other reason, have been recovered from that vessel in the first instance as damages by the persons entitled to sue therefor.
LORD HERSCHELL: The first of these Amendments is similar to the last one which I moved.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 28, after ("against") insert ("the owners of").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out the second ("she") and insert ("they").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: The insertion of the words "by way of contribution" which I propose in my next Amendment is intended to make provision as to the manner in which a contribution under the clause is to be recovered. The words "by way of contribution" enable the person entitled to the contribution to bring in the contributories as third parties.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 29, after ("recover") insert ("by way of contribution").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 30, after the second ("the") insert ("owners of the")
Clause 3, line 31, leave out ("they") and insert ("those vessels")
Clause 3, line 32, leave out ("from a vessel")
Clause 3, line 35, leave out ("from that vessel").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is thought that the new subsection which I now move, and which contains an express saving for third party procedure, will meet a criticism which was made by Lord Gorell that Clause 3, as at present drafted, does not make it clear that there is a right to proceed in rem as well as in personam.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 37, after ("therefore") insert as a new subsection—
(2) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the persons entitled to any such contribution as aforesaid shall for the purpose of recovering the same have, subject to the provisions of this Act, the same rights and powers as the persons entitled to sue for damages in the first instance.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
General Provisions.
7. No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien in respect of any damage or loss caused to a vessel, her cargo, passengers, or freight, or any property on board, by the fault of another vessel, or in respect of any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date when the damage or loss was caused or the salvage services were rendered, and an action shall not be maintainable under this Act by any vessel to recover from any other vessel her overpaid proportion of any damages for loss of life or personal injuries unless proceedings therein are commenced within one year from the date of payment:
Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action to which this section relates may extend any such period, to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit, if satisfied that there has not during such period been any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel within the jurisdiction of the Court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff's ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business.
LORD GORELL*LORD GORELL moved to omit the words "in respect of any damage or loss caused to a vessel, her cargo, passengers, or freight, or any property on board, by the fault of another vessel," and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said: This is really only a drafting Amendment to make plain what it is intended to deal with. The Convention provides that actions for the recovery of damages are barred after an interval of two years from the date of the casualty, but as at present worded I do not think the clause adequately includes all who ought to be dealt with and not allowed to sue after two years. My Amendment will give effect to the whole provision, and prevent actions being brought after two years by all those who are interested either in property, or life, or personal injuries.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 3, lines 30, 31 and 32, leave out from ("lien") in line 30 to ("vessel") in line 32 and insert ("against a vessel or her owners in respect of any damage or loss to another vessel, her cargo or freight, or any property on board her, or damages for loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board her, caused by the fault of the former vessel, whether such vessel be wholly or partly in fault").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD HERSCHELL: I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: The next Amendment is consequential. It is necessary to add the words proposed in order to cover personal injuries.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 3, line 34, after ("loss") insert ("or injury").—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: The next is another Amendment to get rid of the wording which personifies a vessel.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 3, line 30, leave out from ("Act") to ("over-paid") in line 37 and insert ("to enforce any contribution in respect of an").—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: My next Amendment deals with a matter which requires a moment's consideration. In the Convention which I have before me there is this provision, that the grounds upon which the periods of limitation—one being the two years already mentioned and the other one year—may be suspended or interrupted are to be determined by the law of the Court where the case is tried; and, further, that the high contracting parties reserve to themselves the right to provide by legislation in their respective countries that the said period shall be extended in cases where it has not been possible to arrest the defendant vessel in the territorial waters of the State in which the defendant has his domicile or principal place of business. The clause as at present drawn only gives a power to extend in the one case where the Court is satisfied that there has not been during such period any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff's ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business. My next two Amendments have for their object the giving to the Court of a wider discretion. It is not desirable that the only case in which the two years may be extended is where there has been no opportunity of arrest. There might be cases of the death of owners and difficulties of that character, and the time might elapse before matters were put straight. It seems to me desirable that the Court should have a more general extending power than is at present conferred by the clause. The other alteration is not that
36
the Court "may" extend if there has been no opportunity, but that it "shall" extend. It seems to me that the Court ought not to be left to exercise its discretion if there has been no opportunity at all within the two years of arresting the vessel. There ought to be a right to an extension, such as the Judge thinks fit, which will give a reasonable opportunity of arresting the vessel.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 1, after ("fit") insert ("and shall")
Clause 7, line 6, after ("business") insert ("extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD HERSCHELL: The Board of Trade are under the impression that these Amendments are quite reasonable and that they would be an improvement. Therefore I have much pleasure in accepting them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application of Act.
8.—(1) This Act shall extend throughout His Majesty's dominions and to any territories under his protection, and to Cyprus:
Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland.
(2) This Act shall not apply in any case in which proceedings have been taken before the passing thereof and all such cases shall be determined as though this Act had not been passed.
LORD HERSCHELL: It is proposed to insert here a new subsection—it is really the subsection (3) which was taken out of Clause 1—to make it quite clear that the Bill applies in all cases coming within its scope—for example, that it applies equally in cases occurring in non-tidal as well as in tidal waters.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, line 15, after subsection (2 insert the following new subsection—
(3) The provisions of this Act shall be applied in all cases heard and determined in any Court having jurisdiction to deal with the case and in whatever waters the damage or loss in question was caused or the salvage services in question were rendered, and subsection (9) of Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, shall cease to have effect.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: The further subsection which I now move is rendered necessary owing to the introduction of references to owners of ships instead of expressions personifying ships. The owner may not be the person responsible for the damage. Responsibility also lies with the master and any other person to whose neglect the damage was due, and in certain cases the charterer would be responsible and not the owner.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, insert the following new subsection—
(4) This Act shall apply to any persons other than the owners responsible for the fault of the vessel as though the expression "owners" included such persons, and in any case where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are Dot responsible for the navigation and management of the vessel, this Act shall be read as though for references to the owners there were substituted references to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible.—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved the insertion of a new subsection, to provide that proceedings in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries may be brought in rem or in personam. The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter of considerable importance. Your Lordships will notice that there is in the Bill a right to proceed against the owners of vessels jointly or severally for loss of life or personal injuries. Now certainly for loss of life there is no right of process in rem, and this unfortunate position would result unless my Amendment is introduced. Take the case of two vessels colliding in the English Channel, one of which is a British ship and the other a foreign ship, and both of which put into Dover or London. The English owners can be sued in respect of personal injuries at Common Law; they can be sued under Lord Campbell's Act for loss of life. That is to say, the English owners can be made responsible in full. But how would they proceed to enforce any contribution from the other wrongdoer, he being a foreigner? Under the Bill at present they could not do it without suing him abroad in his own country. Therefore it seems to me desirable, from the contribution point of view, that any person who pays in full and can be compelled to pay in full shall have a right in rem against the foreigner and to enforce it in this country. Otherwise in all these cases it would be impossible to get at the foreign ship at all to enforce the contribu-
38
tion. Further, the Convention contemplates that the ships of all nationalities embraced in it shall have this liability upon them. I therefore propose the insertion of a new claim to provide that proceedings in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries may be brought in rem or in personam. The whole object is to carry out what is intended by this Code, that vessels which were both to blame shall be made to contribute; and there seems no reason why this should not include a right to go direct against the vessels, whether they are foreign or British.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, after new subsection 4 insert new subsection—
(5) Proceedings in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries may be brought in rem or in personam.—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD HERSCHELL: This Amendment is one of substance, and the suggestion is of great value; but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consent to the words "caused by default of a vessel" to be inserted after the word "injuries," so that it may be quite clear that the Amendment comes within the scope of the Bill. I would further suggest that instead of a subsection this should be made a new clause.
LORD GORELL: If the noble Lord will look at the Amendment which has already been passed with regard to Clause 7 he will see that it is so worded as to deal with cases where the fault of the other vessel is either whole or part. I am not quite certain that the introduction of the words which he now suggests would meet that case. It is quite possible that the proposed words would only relate to the case where the other vessel was wholly in fault. But if the noble Lord would agree to the words "caused by default of a vessel whether such vessel be wholly or partly to blame," I think that would meet the point.
LORD HERSCHELL: I will accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment this evening, and cons alt with him between now and the Report stage with a view to introducing any words which may be necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 201.)

COPYRIGHT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' attention to the provisions of a Bill which in one sense is of the second order. It is not a Bill which raises any political controversy. It is not a Bill which excites the interest that some of the great measures which have been recently before Parliament have excited, but yet it is a Bill of very great magnitude and importance. It is a Bill which affects large interests, and I think it is a testimony to the skill of my colleague the President of the Board of Trade that he should have succeeded, first in constructing it at all, and then in piloting it through the House of Commons in the form in which it now comes up to this House. I must add that it is a Bill which necessarily affects a number of interests, and interests which are not reconcilable. It is essentially a Bill of this kind—that you should give to somebody something you take from somebody else. Therefore it is a Bill which in its essence raises small and troublesome points, and the business of a Minister is to construct it in such a fashion as to make the maximum possible advance with the least possible injustice. I do not say that nobody will complain of things that there are in this Bill, but I think in every case it will be found that the President of the Board of Trade has been right in the balancing of advantages and disadvantages.
The Bill does three things. In the first place, it goes as far as is practicable towards establishing a complete Code of copyright law; next it makes provision for international copyright—that is to say, if other nations treat us well according to a general system, we propose to treat them well, and give them the benefit of that system according to our law; and, in the third place, it lays the foundation of a uniform copyright, system throughout the Empire. The great self-governing Dominions must, of course, maintain their autonomy, but, subject to that, the Bill goes a long way to make what I believe will be a common system of copyright throughout the Empire. I will take these points in their order. The first is what I
40
may call the domestic character of the Bill, the changes which it makes in the law as it now stands. At present the domestic law is in a great state of confusion. Ever since Lord Camden differed from Lord Mansfield in 1774 in the case of "Donaldson v. Becket" no one has quite known what that Common Law of copyright was. Yet that Common Law of copyright is still relied on. In some cases the common rights subsist only till the statutory law becomes operative, and in other cases the Common Law right co-exists with the statutory right, so that the state of confusion is difficult to describe even to a lawyer.
The subject-matter of copyright falls, as things stand at present, under four great heads. The term of copyright in each of these cases is different under the present law, and the rights conferred under the copyright when you have got it are different. For instance, copyright and performing right are treated as distinct rights. The result is that to find out what the law of copyright is involves wading through over twenty Statutes. This Bill sweeps away the whole of the Common Law and the whole of the Statute Law, with very small exceptions, and substitutes a Code. There are two Acts which will still remain operative, the Act of 1892 and the Act of 1906, which were passed for the special purpose of giving powers to stop the vending of pirated copies of music sold in the streets. These remain because they were of a complicated character and contained provisions which could not well be incorporated in this Bill. But with that exception and, I think, the exception of two other Acts, part of which it is convenient to leave standing, this Bill repeals some eighteen Statutes and also the special rules of Common Law, so that the law of copyright for the future will be comparatively simply ascertained. Then there is one other step taken of a distinctively forward character which comes under the description of domestic. That is, that copyright is extended to the right of reproduction. Performing right, for instance, becomes one of the copyrights. Then there are translations and mechanical reproductions—as, for instance, by those rolls which are so familiar in connection with the gramophone. These things are brought in in a way in which they were not, brought in before. I have described genarally the domestic side of the Bill.

41
I pass to the international side. As your Lordships know, in the year 1886 there was a conference of certain great Powers at Berne which established a Copyright Convention, followed ten years afterwards by the Convention of Paris; but in order to get forward it was necessary that further steps should be taken, and there was a great conference of the Powers in Berlin in 1908, at which certain principles were agreed upon of a very far-reaching and very liberal character. The essence of them was that all the technicalities in the way of obtaining copyright should be got rid of, and that there should be, as far as possible, something like a uniform standard. This country was a party to that Convention, and when the signatories returned it was necessary to see what steps should be taken in order to adapt our law to the new state of things. There had already been a Copyright Commission some years previously which had got a great deal of valuable material together, but it was necessary that the work should be taken in hand under the auspices of some lawyer of great experience, to find out what changes in the law should be made, and were proper to be made, and would require to be made, in order to bring the law of this country, and, indeed, of the Empire, into harmony with the provisions of the Berlin Convention. Lord Gorell undertook the very onerous task of presiding over the expert Committee which dealt with these subjects, and he and his colleagues produced a Report which has been the foundation of nearly everything which there is in this Bill. The general principle in dealing with foreign nations which is embodied in the Bill is this, that we let the subjects of foreign countries who publish books here take the benefit of our provision for copyright unless those foreign nations maltreat us by not giving our subjects similar concessions. On the other hand, in the case of books not published in this country, but which are entitled to international copyright in the strict and more extensive sense, then by Order in Council, if the country the subject of which seeks to get these rights gives the advantages of the new system to our subjects in that country, you can extend the application of this Bill so as to give the subjects of that country the benefit of copyright in this country for books which have been published abroad. That is the substance of the second main feature of the Bill relating to international copyright.
42
I now come to the third part, what I may call the Imperial side. You cannot, of course, control the self-governing Dominions. There are already some of thenm—Canada, for instance—chafing under the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1842, which was an Imperial Act and extended to Canada. We sweep away that Act and set Canada and the whole of the Dominions quite free. On the other hand, the Bill which is before your Lordships extends to the whole Empire, subject to the power of the self-governing Dominions to deal with it as they please. The reason that has been made possible is this. There was an Imperial Conference on copyright in the year 1910, to which the various Dominions sent over representatives, and in which an agreement was come to to carry out legislatively the provisions of the Berlin Conference as put into shape by the Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell presided. There was complete unanimity at that Conference, and its proceedings were agreeable to the Conference of this year, so much so that it was not necessary to deal with the subject in any detail. The Bill, therefore, represents what has been agreed upon at an imperial Conference, and in substance its provisions are these. In order to make the Imperial Act operative in any Dominion, the Dominion has to adopt it formally, and then it becomes the law of the Dominion as well as the law here. On the other hand, there may be some Dominion which gives substantially the same rights as the Bill gives without having solemnly adopted the system. In that case it is possible by Secretary of State's Order, by Proclamation, to give the benefit of the copyright system to the Dominion which has in substance, though not in form, adopted the provisions of this Bill. In that way it is hoped that there will be a uniform system all over the Empire. The effect of that is that some Dominions may not care to go the whole way in adopting the provisions of this Bill, and others may adopt it altogether. In the case of foreign countries, some will certainly go the whole way, while others may not care to deal with us and may not care to come in. But a great step forward has been taken in putting the law into such a shape that it is easy for these things to be done.
Now, my Lords, come to the provisions of the Bill, and I will run through them

43
very shortly. First I will describe what is done. The Statutes which are dealt with are some twenty in number, passed at various dates from 1734 down to 1906, each dealing with a separate part of the subject-matter, and varying in details in a manner which is as illogical as it is perplexing. The Statutes to which I have referred make no provision for the modern development of invention, such as the cinematograph, the phonograph, and the piano-player, all of which have an important hearing on the copyright law. The Bill practically repeals all these Statutes and also the special rules of Common Law, and places all works, so far as possible, under a uniform and amended system of law.
I will deal with the principal changes which this Bill introduces before passing to the clauses. The various subjects of literary copyright, performing right in dramatic and musical works, engravings, paintings, drawings and photographs and sculpture, which are dealt with in some five series of Statutes, are now all placed upon a nearly uniform basis. The same term of copyright—namely, the life of the author and fifty years after his death—is given to all works, with two exceptions. The reason for that is twofold. First of all, it was the term which the great Powers which negotiated agreed on as the most reasonable. Secondly, those who were representing this country were much impressed by this fact, which was dwelt on in the inquiries which were made in this country, that an author very often receives little for his books during his life. It is, therefore, right that the term of copyright should include fifty years after his death. Under the existing law each of the five series of Statutes lays down a different term. For books it is forty-two years from publication or the life of the author and seven years, whichever is the longer. If the author's books have only become famous in his closing years, the period of seven years often does not enable adequate provision to be made for his family. In the case of photographs and mechanical instrument records and rolls—the two exceptions I referred to—these are given fifty years from the time of the making of the original negative or plate.
As I have already indicated, the rights included in copyright are greatly extended. First of all, copyright is given for the first
44
time to works of architecture and mechanical instrument records, awl also to cinematograph films as a whole—that is, as distinct front the separate photographs of which they are made up. Then general copyright is to include the sole right to reproduce the work, or any substantial part thereof, in any material form whatsoever. Then there are various provisions which are novel. The copyright in a work of art is in general infringed by reproduction in any other form of art—for instance, a painting by means of sculpture, and so on. Then, again, copyright is to include the sole right to dramatise a novel or to issue a drama in book form. Copyright will include the sole right to make cinematograph films and mechanical instrument records, rolls, &c., representing the work, or to perform it in public by means of such films, but subject, as there might arise an unjustifiable monopoly in these matters, to a certified system of compulsory licences. Copyright will include in the future the sole right of making translations. If it is desired to reserve the sole right of performing, or authorising performance in public, it will no longer be necessary, as it is now in the case of music, to print a notice to that effect on the work. Then, again, there is another advantage. Registration of copyright was a very futile thing. It was not necessary to register copyright, but you required to register before you could sue. That will not be any longer necessary. Provision is made for the innocent infringer. A person who was not aware, and had not reasonable means of making himself aware, that copyright existed will not be liable to damages, although he will be liable to an injunction and costs. After the expiration of twenty-five years—or in the case of existing works thirty years—after the author's death it will in general (except in the case of photographs, records, and rolls) be open to any one to reproduce a work for sale on condition only of giving prior notice of his intention to do so and paying a royalty of ten per cent. on the price at which he publishes the work. The object of that is, while protecting the fifty years during which the author or his executors are to have the copyright, to prevent the work from being shut out from the public.
I think I have now described the main features of the Bill. There are others which arise in such detail that it will be more convenient for your Lordships to

45
look at them in the clauses of the Bill. I will very shortly draw attention to them. Clause 1 defines the mode in which copyright is to be obtained. It is to subsist for the term I have mentioned if the work is published within the King's Dominions, or, if the work has not been published in the King's Dominions, the author at the date of the making of the work was a British subject or resident within the King's Dominions. Then there is a definition of "copyright," the substance of which is that it is the sole right to produce or reproduce in any form.
Clause 2 deals with infringement of copyright. An "infringer" is a person who does anything the sole right to do which is by the Act conferred on the owner of the copyright. There are certain provisions which are intended to mitigate the stringency of that. For instance, take a copyright book. The Bill provides that in the case of a collection mainly composed of non-copyright matter and bona fide intended for the use of schools, it is not to be an infringement to put in a short passage or a few short passages from a copyright book. Then, again, the publication in a newspaper of a report of a lecture delivered in public, unless the report is prohibited by conspicuous notice or printed notice affixed before and maintained during the lecture at or about the main entrance of the building in which the lecture is given, is not to be an infringement. The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from any published work is, again, not to be an infringement, and the clause goes through a series of cases of that kind. Clause 4 enables compulsory licences to be given if a complaint is made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the owner of the copyright in a work has refused to republish or allow the republication of the work. I need not trouble your Lordships with the intervening clauses, which go into detail; but Clause 9 is important. Copyright is now given in architecture and architectural designs. Clause 9 provides that where the construction of a building or other structure which infringes, or which, if completed, would infringe, the copyright in some other work has been commenced, the owner of the copyright shall not be entitled to restrain the construction of the building or order its demolition. All he can get is damages, and that seems very reasonable.
46
Then I come to Clause 15, which has given rise to a great deal of controversy. Under this clause the publisher of every book published in the United Kingdom is to deliver at his own expense a copy of the book to the trustees of the British Museum, to the Bodleian Library at Oxford, the University Library at Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. I think that is the law at the present time. The publisher is also to give a copy to the National Library of Wales. The trustees of the British Museum are to have a copy of the whole book, with all maps and illustrations, and in the best form in which the book is published, but the others are to be on the paper on which the greater number of the books published are printed, and these books are only to be given if they are asked for by the libraries, other than in the case of the British Museum. It is complained that it is a burden on publishers to supply these books. So it is. But it must be remembered that publishers are getting protection and advantages under this Bill of a new kind. The term of copyright is enlarged and lengthened, and it does not seem unreasonable that they should bear this not very serious burden.
The other clauses of the Bill comprise Clause 19, which confers the new copyright in mechanical contrivances, and the provisions which relate to foreign countries and to the Dominions. The Bill falls into these three parts and comes under these three heads. It is a Bill which covers a great deal of ground and makes large changes in the law, but upon the whole I submit to your Lordships that it is a Bill which ought to be looked at as one which has been demanded for a very long time. The state of our law of copyright is disgraceful, and the Bill at any rate has this great merit, that its provisions are very simple. Then it has the further great advantage that it meets with the concurrence of other nations, and gives the hope of an extension of international copyright—a great blessing to authors and publishers alike. Finally, it is a Bill which has met with the good wishes and support of the self-governing Dominions. In these circumstances I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, having had the question of copyright very fully before me on the Committee which prepared the Report on which this Bill is founded, perhaps I may be permitted to detain your Lordships a moment or two upon the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that anybody who undertook the study of this subject would be struck at once by the fact that they had to consider some twenty different Acts of Parliament, ranging from the days of George II to the present time, and dealing with all sorts of different things, and dealing with them on different footings, for different terms of years, and so forth. I cannot help feeling that when one finds the whole of these difficult Acts brought into line with modern ideas in some thirty clauses of this Bill, immense credit is due to those who have constructed it.
This Bill simplifies and consolidates the whole of the law of copyright, which has been in process of evolution for close on 200 years (apart from questions of what the Common Law was prior to that time), and it also brings into play provisions which deal with the Colonies and with foreign countries on the basis of the international agreement which has been entered into. It sweeps away all previous law, one may say, and gives the foundation for simple principles, which I think apply practically to all that is the subject of copyright. Broadly speaking, for all matters the author gets protection for his life and for fifty years after, with the exception of one or two matters like photographs and records, more or less mechanical productions, in which the fifty years dates from the time when the plate or negative was produced. It applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. It will, it is hoped, in time apply to the whole of the British Dominions, and its effect will operate throughout other countries which have joined the Union which produced the concord upon which the Report was based.
When the Bill is looked through as it was originally introduced, I think one may say that it was practically in accord with the Report of the Committee that investigated the matter, but as it emerged from the other House it contained certain substantial Amendments or changes which are not entirely in accord with the views expressed by the Committee, and are not, I think, in accordance with the views of those who uphold to the full the rights of authors
48
in the production of their brains. In some respects it seems as if there had been rather less appreciation of property in brain product than was thought to be right by the Committee and than was proposed in the Bill as originally introduced. For instance, while copyright in works of literature is given in the Bill for life and fifty years, there is a proviso which cuts down that latter protection to twenty-five years, except so far as it concedes a percentage on the sales after that twenty-five years. There is another clause which prevents the owner of the copyright assigning the full benefit which it is contemplated he should have for his life and fifty years afterwards. The proviso to which I refer reduces that period by providing that he can only dispose of the copyright for his life and twenty-five years afterwards, and in respect of the remaining twenty-five years he can only dispose of his rights by will. That is a proviso which limits the benefit of the copyright, but it may be owing to the view that fifty years is too long a period. Those are matters which will probably have to be discussed in Committee.
There is one other clause which was not in accordance with the Committee's Report. I refer to the new development of the phonographic and pianola industry. The effect of the Bill as it now stands is that if once a licence is given to any manufacturer, other manufacturers may claim to have the right to manufacture on paying certain royalties. That, again, is a curtailing of the full rights of the author. With regard to Clause 15, the publishers claim that not only is their burden left but that it is increased, and the suggestion will probably be made that that burden should be reduced in some form, so that they should not be obliged to provide five or six copies of very costly and expensive books for the benefit of those who can well pay for what they ask. Broadly speaking, I thoroughly agree that the Bill is one which deserves to pass as a great consolidation measure, and one which improves matters in many respects, but I am sure it requires careful consideration on many details.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, there can be no controversy as to the general character of this Bill. It is a great improvement on the present state of copyright law, and has been put before us in an intelligible and simple form. There

49
are, however, one or two points in the Bill which appear to me not to have been sufficiently appreciated in their bearing on the well-being of the great reading community. This Bill proposes to extend the copyright in respect of books from forty-two years or the life of the author and seven years, whichever was the longer period, to the lifetime of the author and fifty years after the author's death. I submit that that is a claim to an extension of the time of copyright which is not supported by any injustice shown in the past and is not required in the interests of authorship, while it is much to be deprecated in the interests of education.
The present period of copyright has amply sufficed, I submit, for the remuneration of authors as a whole. The extension of the period to fifty years after the author's death is supported on the ground that there are some cases in which authors do not become popular and their books do not sell until they are well advanced in life, and so they get little reward for what they may have produced if the copyright expires seven years after their death. I think it will be found on examination that such cases are extremely few, and few as they are, I submit that it would have been much better to have met the difficulty in a similar way to that in which the difficulty is met in respect of patents—namely, by providing for an application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an extension of the copyright in such peculiar cases. But this Bill, in order to meet these peculiar cases, is going to sacrifice the whole reading public. I believe that this change in the law will not be found to operate at all to the advantage of authors, speaking broadly. It will be found to operate to the advantage of publishers only, who will get an extended period of the copyright in the books which they publish.
I would like your Lordships to consider how this proposed law world have operated in the past within our own experience. Take the works of Walter Scott. Scott died in 1832, and under this proposed extension of the law copyright in all his works would have been maintained right down to 1882. Under the existing law, however, the copyright in his poems expired soon after Walter Scott's death and copyright in his novels dropped in at comparatively early dates, and there have been repeated editions of his works,
50
especially of his poems, at cheap prices which made them accessible to the mass of the community. Take the case of the poems of Wordsworth, who died in 1850. Under this Bill copyright in Wordsworth's poems would not have expired before 1900, and his works, therefore, would not have been accessible in the same way that they have been in the last generation. I appeal to my noble friend who leads the House. The noble Viscount brought out an edition of Wordsworth prefaced by an admirable essay on the character of the poet and his place in literature, arranged on what I believe to be a rational chronological principle. If this Bill had been law, it would have been impossible for my noble, friend to have brought out the book at the time he did, and the book would have been withheld from the public for many years. There are other books now within our reach which would not have been within our reach if this Bill had been law.
Take the case of the works of Carlyle. Carlyle's "French Revolution" was published in 1837. The copyright of it expired seven years after the author's death, and we have been enabled, in consequence of the expiration of that copyright, to receive editions of the "French Revolution" edited in the most scholarly fashion, with notes on matters of another generation, providing a most admirable presentment of the work for the education of the new generation. Had this Bill been law it would have been impossible to have brought out those editions of the "French Revolution." The copyright would have been maintained down to the year 1931. So, again, with the poems of Browning. His earlier poems have been brought out, the copyright having expired, in a beautiful form, whereas under this Bill they would not have been accessible for thirty years to come. No case has been made out for this great extension, nor do I think it will operate as a rule to the advantage of authors. The authors will have sold their copyright to the publishers, who are the people really interested in this matter. I am well aware of the peculiar clause to which Lord Gorell referred, which disables an author from parting with his copyright for a longer period than his life and twenty-five years after his death. Whether that will or will not operate to the advantage of the author's family is, I think, doubtful, but it is a most extraordinary and freakish

51
suggestion, and it is a going back upon all our usual principles of law in taking away from the author the command of his own property. The restraint is all the more peculiar because, though the author may not sell the copyright for more than twenty-five years after his death, he has power to dispose of it by will, and if he does not dispose of it by will it forms part of his personal estate, and as such I presume the value of the copyright, although unsaleable by himself, would be an asset which would come in, if necessary, in the sale of his estate for the payment of his debts. This is a clause which, I think, will require considerable examination if it is to be sustained at all. But the stronger case is, I think, against the extension of the copyright period to fifty years after death.
My noble friend below me (Viscount Haldane) referred to the complaint of the publishers that they were burdened with the cost of supplying to the British Museum and the other privileged libraries copies of the books which they publish, but it is a burden, not on the publisher, but primarily on the author. It is part of the cost of production, and is so considered and taken into account by the publisher in the terms which he is willing to give to the author. It is as much a part of the cost of publication as the cost of printing and of paper, and to suggest, as the publishers do, that it runs into their profits is an entire misrepresentation of the real facts of the case. It is merely a burden which they pass on. It is a matter of argument whether the privilege possessed by the three Universities and by the library in Edinburgh should be extended to the new University of Wales, but it should be regarded, not as a tax put upon the publishers, but as a tax primarily put upon the authors. I do think attention has not been sufficiently directed to the extended term of copyright which this Bill proposes to enact, and I hope that before the next stage is reached some of the objections to the extension may be considered.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, merely rise to say that I am not quite sure that the noble Lord who has just sat down has quite accurately represented the case of the publishers. I do not think the publishers or the authors in the least object to supplying to the Universities a few copies gratis of all ordinary books—those, that is to say, which are tolerably cheap. Their objection—and I think it
52
is a substantial one—applies to the exceptional case of books with a very limited sale and which are very expensive. Only to-day I saw the prospectus of a book which is about to be brought out by Messrs. Macmillan, "The Life of Emma, Lady Hamilton." Of this book 250 copies only are to be printed, costing thirty guineas each. It does seem rather hard to ask a publisher or author to supply free five books out of such a limited number. The Bill does, I think, appear to recognise that the present law is rather defective, because it provides that the copies for Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Dublin are to be supplied on application.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: That is the law now.
THE EARL OF CROMER: With respect to Wales, the case is not quite the same. In the case of Wales, under subsection (5) of Clause 15, the Board of Trade is to be allowed to make regulations as to the books of which copies are to be delivered. I believe the publishers would be perfectly content if the same power which is now going to be taken as regards the Welsh University was also given with respect to the other Universities. I believe the original intention of the law was that only such books should be supplied to the Universities as were really useful and intended for academic purposes; but, as a matter of fact, the Universities have agents in London who apply for every single book that is published. It cannot, I conceive, be seriously contended that such a book as the "Life of Emma, Lady Hamilton" is required for any academic purposes. I hope this matter will be considered in the Committee stage, because so far as I have been able to understand the publishers have a really solid grievance. Under this Bill publishers will have to give six copies gratis of all books. In this matter of free distribution we are more liberal than other countries. In no other country are publishers required to give more than three copies; in France, the United States, and some other countries they give two; and in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Norway, and other countries no free copies at all are given.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, although the condition of the house does not lend itself to such efforts of oratory as Lord Macaulay is stated to have indulged in on a great occasion similar to this, I am sure the noble Viscount in charge of the

53
Bill will see that there are points which must be carefully considered when we go into Committee upon this Bill. To those I should like to make one addition. Like other noble Lords who have spoken I am in this difficulty, that. the Bill having been taken in Grand Committee in the House of Commons there has not been the same publicity as is usually the ease when Bills are considered in Committee of the Whole House; and those who are interested in the subject to which I desire to draw attention are really not aware exactly of what did occur in Grand Committee.
I desire to draw attention to Clause 5, in which the position of journalists and authors under a contract of service to a newspaper is dealt with in very drastic fashion. Clause 5 lays down that, subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein, provided that—
"where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, he the first owner of the copyright."
It is urged upon me that that will press very hardly on some journalists. In the first place, it scarcely seems fair that a man who happens to have an annual contract or a contract to write a couple of articles a week, or one article a week, should have no protection short of an agreement, while the man who writes a few casual articles for the same journal, not being under a contract, has protection. There is no question of the right of the proprietor indefinitely to republish the newspaper, magazine, or periodical containing the work. It is a question of republishing in quite distinct form, as in the case of a book of collected articles. If certain articles which a journalist has written in a newspaper are of such. general interest that, after a short period, they are reproduced in a more permanent form, it certainly would seem very hard that their author, who is probably superior to the casual contributor, should, as he had written them while under a contract of service, be debarred altogether by law, in the absence of a definite agreement, from any share in the profits.
54
I urge this point on two grounds. One is that the practice as between newspaper proprietors and journalists has, I believe, been absolutely satisfactory in the past. Great consideration has been shown by newspaper proprietors in the case of works of journalists which are reproduced. The second ground is that I venture to believe that the provision in Clause 5 which safeguards the journalist where there is an agreement will really be nugatory in a great number of cases. There is hardly any man in the world so powerful as a newspaper proprietor, and it is, of course, an extreme assumption that a journalist entering upon an engagement should be in a position, before he has gained the confidence of the editor, to say that he must have an agreement safeguarding his rights in everything he wrote. I hope the noble Viscount will give his attention to this subject, which is of very wide interest, and will consider whether, by the introduction of some qualifying words, it is not possible to bring the two classes into harmony, and, without in any way injuring the interests of the proprietors, to make provision for doing by law that which by custom has hitherto obtained throughout the profession.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether he would find it convenient to give us a fortnight before taking the Committee stage? I have consulted various noble Lords who are interested in the Bill, and if it is possible to give us a fortnight I am sure it would enable matters to go more smoothly.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think the request of the noble Viscount is a reasonable one, and if this day fortnight is agreeable to noble Lords opposite I will put down the Committee stage for that day.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 14 th of November next.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.