Sitting of 15 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Halkyn District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Hove Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords],
West Hampshire Water Bill [lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Dunfermline Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Private Bills (Group G),
Colonel BATHURST reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills, that the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. John Atkinson, 21, Upper Jackson. Street, South Bank in Normanby, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. John Atkinson, 21, Upper Jackson Street, South Bank in Normanby, do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That John Atkinson do attend the Committee on. Group G of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Message from The Lords,
That they have agreed to:—
Crown Lands Bill,
Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill,
Great Western Railway Bill,
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
Titchfield District Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders No. 2) Bill, with an Amendment.

IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd July; Mr. Joseph Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th July; Mr. John O'Connor]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 200.]
ARMY TERRITORIAL FORCE.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee on the business of Territorial Force Associations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations dated 7th July, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption Amendment) Regulations (Scotland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5160, 5162, and 5164 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
Return ordered of "the total Naval Expenditure of the United Kingdom in each of the, last ten years, showing the interest on naval loans included in the Estimates; the amount of Expenditure out of naval loans, if any, and the Appropriations-in-Aid; the Expenditure on new construction and armament; the amount of new construction, expressed in tonnage, in each of the years named; and the numbers of the personnel; also giving for the same period similar information, so far as it is available and appropriate, for each of the principal foreign naval Powers, with any explanation which may be necessary for the elucidation of the figures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 300, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return ordered "as to the proceedings of Distress Committees in England and Wales and of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 280, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Herbert J. Lewis.]

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what agreement, if any, has been arrived at by the Great Powers in connection with the present war in the Balkans?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any information respecting the position in the Balkans which he could appropriately communicate to the House?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The situation remains as I described it last night. Bulgaria has appealed to Russia to secure a cessation of hostilities. Greece and Servia demand that certain conditions should be accepted by Bulgaria before they agree to an armistice. I may sum up the attitude of the Great Powers by saying that since war began last year their policy has been to keep in touch with each other, to promote peace in the Balkans when they could do so by diplomatic influence, to abstain from forcible intervention and to claim nothing for themselves individually. It is not likely that agreement between the Great Powers could be preserved if they abandoned the various points of this policy.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Have the Powers made any communication to the Turkish Government in regard to the danger of violating the Enos Midia frontier?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that the Powers have made any collective communication to the Turkish Government on the question. I dealt with that point last night.

  Egypt.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether any project has been drafted for the reconstitution of the Legislative Council and General Assembly in Egypt; whether the introduction of a new electoral law is also contemplated; and, if so, whether the existing Legislative Council and General Assembly will be consulted before the Khedive's consent is obtained to the decree putting in. force the new law; and (2) whether he will take an opportunity before the end of this Session of giving the House lull information with regard to the contemplated reforms in the Government of Egypt, details of which are now appearing in. the Egyptian Press?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the two first paragraphs is in the affirmative. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative. The Khedive has already given his consent to the new law. I intend to lay the text of the new laws and an explanation of them on Monday next.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether the Egyptian Government have entered into, or are about to enter into, any arrangement extending the borrowing powers of the Agricultural Bank of Egypt, and making other modifications in its constitution; and whether the Legislative Council has been consulted as to the advisability of taking such a step, or has been informed of the terms of the arrangement?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand the matter is being considered by the Council of Ministers, which is the usual course.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether the Egyptian Government have come to any arrangement with the Egyptian Delta Light Railway Company, with a view to repurchasing the concession for the Cairo-
  Helouan Railway, and for other purposes; and whether the Legislative Council has been consulted in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: I am informed that an arrangement for this purpose has been come to by the Ministry of Finance and has been referred to the Council of Ministers; this is, I understand, the usual course, and not to refer such matters to the Legislative Council.

  Slave Trading (Barotseland).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his
  1038
  attention has been drawn to the arrest and imprisonment of twenty-one persons in Barotseland, engaged in slave trading with Portuguese slave traders over the border; and, if so, whether he has instructed, or will instruct, His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon to draw the attention of the Portuguese Government to this traffic as constituting a serious menace to the good government of this portion of His Majesty's Dominions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have telegraphed for information with regard to the incident mentioned, but it has not yet reached me.

  Murder of Captain Aylmer (Abyssinia).
  Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is demanding compensation from the Abyssinian Government for the murder of Captain Aylmer by Abyssinian subjects; and, if so, what is the amount of such compensation?
  Sir E. GREY: The matter of the amount and form of claim to be made is under consideration in consultation with His Majesty's Minister at Adis Ababa.

  Places of Worship (India).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many of the Christian places of worship erected since 1905 in India towards which the Government have contributed are Army chapels, attached to barracks, or are in other respects Government property; and how many are the property of the various religious denominations to which they are allocated?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The information asked for is not available in this country. The Government of India have been asked whether they can furnish it.
  Mr. KING: Will they be likely to take a long time to get the information?
  Mr. MONTAGU: When my hon. Friend put down a series of questions on this subject I sent them out to India together, and they reached India on 28th June. On 30th June I telegraphed to the Government of India, asking them to let me have a reply by telegraph. I have had no reply to that telegram yet. I do not propose to take any further action.
  Mr. KINGasked how many consecrated and how many unconsecrated Christian places of worship have been erected in India since 1905 with Government contributions; whether the consecrated places of worship are used only by the denominations to which they belong; and whether the unconsecrated places of worship will be available for the various Christian sects which may apply for the use of them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The information asked for in the first part of the question is contained in the statement already supplied to the hon. Member—ten are shown as consecrated, forty-one unconsecrated; with regard to parts two and three, the use of consecrated Government churches for Presbyterian and Wesleyan services for troops is regulated by rules contained in the Government of India's Resolution of 2nd June, 1911. I shall be glad to supply the hon. Member with a copy. The use of unconsecrated churches for services for troops is arranged by the military authorities after consultation with the chaplains of the denominations concerned.

  Religious Endowments (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the British Government, in taking over the religious endowments made by its predecessors in title, made any distinction as to the claims of different religions, prescribed any conditions as to the use of temples and mosques, or required that temples should be open for the use of Mahomedans and mosques for the devotion of Hindus?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. In maintaining religious endowments created by former rulers of India the British Government was concerned only with their application in accordance with predetermined conditions.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been or will be undertaken by the Government of India to redeem the pledge given in the Imperial Legislative Council on the 5th of March last that the Government, besides considering the opinions of the three architectural experts appointed by the India Office, will take the best available advice with regard to all architectural questions and all local conditions affecting them, and fully consider them
  1040
  before any final decision with regard to the building of the New Delhi is arrived
  at?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is for the Government of India to settle for themselves how they should obtain the best available advice.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India, as at present advised, have decided that Indian craftsmen can only be employed as decorators in the building of the New Delhi; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will advise the Government of India that this separation of the functions of building and decoration, which does not obtain in Indian architectural practice, is calculated to be ruinous to Indian craftsmanship?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not aware that the Government of India have come to any such decision as is mentioned in the question.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State will instruct the architects appointed by him for the design and construction of the New Delhi to make the fullest possible use of the constructive ability of Indian builders in the light of the new information with regard to their capacity given in the Report on Modern Indian Architecture, recently published by the Government of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Delhi Committee and the selected architects will be in possession of the Report, and they will no doubt carefully consider the question of utilising as far as possible the services of Indian craftsmen in the building of the new capital. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to issue instructions on a matter which has already engaged the sympathetic attention of the Government of India, and he would point out generally with regard to my hon. Friend's questions on this subject that the detailed control of the building of New Delhi has been entrusted to the Government of India.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Report on Modern Indian Architecture, recently published by the Government of India, is to be considered a final one, or whether, in view of the statistics obtained in the partial and local survey of the Indian building craft already made, the

  1041
  Secretary of State will advise the Government of India to institute full investigations in every province, so that each local Government may be in possession of accurate information with regard to the possibilities of utilising the services of Indian craftsmen in official building operations?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Under the instructions already given the officers of the Archæological Department will continue to report on modern buildings met with in the course of their tours.
  Mr. KING: Will an attempt be made to cover the whole field of India, and not, as has been done, up to the present, merely to select various provinces or districts for the Report?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The officers of the Archæological Department make very wide tours, and it is very doubtful if any important buildings escape their attention.

  Poonah Torture Case.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the policemen convicted in the Poonah torture case have appealed to the Bombay High Court; if so, whether the convictions have been confirmed; and what comments, if any, on the conduct of the police were made by the Court?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have made inquiry, and will communicate the information to my hon. Friend when it comes.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Undersecretary of State for India when he expects to receive from the Government of India the promised Report as to the desirability of amending the criminal law in the matter of confessions of guilt with a view to preventing torture by the police; or, if he has already received it, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would remind my hon. Friend that I told him on the 3rd June that the Government of India hoped to communicate their views that month. This meant that their dispatch was to be expected by about the middle of July—as I explained on the 1st instant. It has not yet come.

  Sitapnr Murder Trials.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what
  1042
  is the date of the first communication of the India Office to the Indian Government after the receipt by the Secretary of State for War of Sir Henry Cotton's letter of the 10th June relative to the Sitapur (Oudh) murder trials, convictions, and executions of men previously acquitted of the charge for which they were subsequently tried and suffered death?
  Mr. MONTAGU: June 27th.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was that after my notice of question given in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19th June, and were Sir Henry Cotton's letters taken no notice of from 4th June?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member will observe that it was after the questions in the House were asked, after the Debate which he initiated, and after Sir Henry Cotton wrote to the Secretary of State announcing that it was his intention to bring the matter before the House of Commons. The Secretary of State waited5 until he heard what was said in the House of Commons.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has made any communication to Sir Henry Cotton requesting him to forward to the India Office the records of the two Sitapur murder trials and the copies of the two judgments which are, to the knowledge of the India Office, in his possession; if such communication has not been made to Sir Henry Cotton, will he be immediately approached with a view to his furnishing the India Office with these documents; whether any expression of regret on the part of the India Office has been conveyed to Sir Henry Cotton for the oversight in not communicating to him till the 9th June, and then only in response to a letter from him of the 4th June, the Report with reference to the Sitapur murder cases, which was received from India on the 4th April; and whether, having regard to the suspicions that have been aroused in India and in these countries by the withholding from the public through an alleged oversight of all information with respect to these trials, the public will be placed in possession of the fullest details concerning them, and be informed on whom the responsibility for the conduct and sequel of these trials lies and on whom lies the responsibility for the withholding from the public of these countries all information concerning them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my previous answers on this subject. I have already expressed in this House my regret that Sir H. Cotton's case should not have been dealt with until he reminded us of the matter, which he did not do until last month. I have already invited him by answer in this House to help us to save delay by letting us have the papers, which he has got, and we hope to receive from India by next mail. I have nothing further to add, save that there is no sort of shadow of foundation for my hon. Friend's reckless charge of withholding information; on the conrary, we have taken steps, as the House knows, to get and publish a full explanation of the occurrence.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I assume that the India Office is anxious to have these documents, and, if so, why was not Sir Henry Cotton directly communicated with?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have already explained that Sir John Hewett is waiting to furnish the India Office, and therefore the House of Commons, with a written account of the occurrence. Until the papers are available, as I have already explained in this House, it would probably save time if Sir Henry Cotton would send the papers to us or to the India Office. That is all I can say.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am in possession of papers?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and learned Friend would hand them to the India Office, I have no doubt that they will be glad to have them.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: No, let them apply.

  Bengal (Secondary Schools).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has information to the effect that an agitation has arisen in Bengal and in the Bengali Press against the proposal of the Government of India that recognition of secondary schools shall in future rest with the local administration instead of with the Calcutta University?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    AFGHAN MEDAL (THOMAS NKWMAX, HANTS REGIMENT).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will inquire into the case of Thomas Newman, No. 291, late 2nd Hants Regiment, of 1, Vigo Road, Andover, who, according to his discharge paper, is entitled to the Afghan medal after serving six years in his regiment, and who left the Army blind of one eye; what his pension is; and why he has not received the medal?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Mr. Thomas Newman's pension is one shilling a day. No application for a medal has been received from him. If he will forward his application to the War Office, it shall be dealt with at once.

    OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, under the promised scheme to enable officers of the Regular Army to live upon their pay, it is proposed in future to give more suitable allowances to regimental bands, so that that part of their maintenance now borne by the officers personally can be transferred to the State; if so, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of making it obligatory for all military bands to give at least twelve public performances in the city or town where they may be quartered free of cost, as is done in foreign countries; (2) whether the statement appearing in the Army Estimates, 1913–14, Appendix 16, page 194, Note, that mounted officers are allowed two soldier servants means what it appears to mean, or whether it should have been drafted so as to mean that mounted officers are allowed two soldier servants on payment of wages; whether a standard wage is paid to all soldier servants in Cavalry regiments by the various officers; if so, will he say what that standard wage is; if not, will he say what wages are paid by officers to soldier servants in the Aldershot Cavalry Brigade and 4th Cavalry Brigade at Colchester, etc.; (3) whether officers in Cavalry regiments have to pay out of their own income for the necessary removal expenses entailed by attending manœuvres at a distance, including the moving of mess, camp furniture, and baggage, or whether such expenses are paid for by the Government; if the

    1045
    former, if he can say what was the expense to each lieutenant attending manœuvres in 1912 in each regiment of the 1st Cavalry Brigade and the 4th Cavalry Brigade, respectively; whether such items were added to the officer's mess bill; (4) whether officers pay anything out of their private incomes for the hire or purchase of mess furniture or whether such expenses are met by the mess allowances paid by Government and appearing as £6 per annum for each officer in Cavalry line regiments in Appendix 16 of the Army Estimates for 1913–14; and (5) what was the amount of the band subscription, the polo subscription, and the hunt subscription, respectively, in 1912, and what it is this year, for lieutenants in each of the regiments comprising the Aldershot 1st Cavalry Brigade and the 4th Cavalry Brigade; whether all lieutenants pay all these subscriptions, whether they play polo or hunt, or if they do not; and whether these sums are added to the officers' monthly mess bills?
    Mr. TENNANT: These and kindred matters are now the subject of investigation.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEY: Will the House be informed what decisions the authorities arrive at in regard to these questions?
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter is under investigation by a Committee, but whether their report will be presented to Parliament I do not know. I think it is most probable it will be.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will obtain from each Territorial Force Association a statement of the sums spent by it on recruiting for the Territorial Army, and give the total for the last year for which the accounts of the associations have been made up?
    Mr. TENNANT: The preparation of this Return would involve very considerable labour on the part of county associations, and I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will not press for it.
    Mr. HUNT: Why is there a difficulty about this Return, when it is given for the Regular Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: It would obviously involve a great deal of labour, and I am informed that it is very difficult to differentiate some of the money spent on recruiting from that spent for other purposes.
    Colonel GREIG: Is it not the fact that recruiting for the Regular Army is done by a special Department, while the recruiting for the Territorial Force is done mainly by the battalions themselves, and there is no regular organisation for it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that that is so.

    YEOMANRY.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state why the War Office is not to issue swords to the Yeomanry until mobilisation, as a few practice swords are not sufficient to train the men in their habitual use; why, as the swords that are to be issued were found inefficient for the Regular Cavalry, the War Office thinks they will be efficient for Yeomanry; and whether he will consider representations from officers commanding some types of Yeomanry that their regiments would infinitely prefer to be provided with bayonets and would be more efficient if provided with these?
    Mr. TENNANT: After careful consideration by the most experienced officers it was decided to be advisable to issue a second weapon to the Yeomanry on mobilisation. The method adopted is considered to be the best.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Why are swords that were found inefficient for the Cavalry to be given to the Yeomanry, and why are they only issued on mobilisation when there is no chance of practice?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have already informed the Noble Lord the matter has been very carefully considered, and that is the decision that has been arrived at.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman give his authority? Was it the Inspector-General of Cavalry or a Committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: A Committee of military experts and the Chief of the General Staff.

  AIRCRAFT.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that Lieutenant Harrison's death on the Cody was due to deterioration of a machine purchased second-hand, and that Lieutenant Arthur's death was caused by the existence of an unsuspected and concealed repair, he will guarantee that he will discontinue the practice of buying up second-

    1047
    hand machines, of which a less accurate history can be known than of the machines which are bought new or manufactured, in view of the fact that an unsuspected repair existed even in Lieutenant Arthur's aeroplane manufactured at the Royal Aircraft Factory; and whether the officer commanding the military wing has been instructed to carry out his duties with more care?
    Mr. TENNANT: The statements and suggestions contained in this question are, as I have already stated to the House, devoid of foundation. In the first case, the machine was the winner of the first prize in the competition last August, open to all nations, and became the property of the Government in accordance with the conditions of that competition; in the second case, the machine was of the B.E. type, acknowledged to be of exceptional excellence and with a remarkable record of safety. The unauthorised repair secretly executed and concealed had nothing whatever to do with the type of machine. In both cases, in accordance with the rules laid down, most careful inspection was made before the flights took place. With regard to the concluding paragraph of the question, all the officers on whom the duty of inspection falls are themselves practical and experienced flying men, and I cannot too strongly deprecate these unfounded suggestions of lack of care on their part.
    Captain FABER: May I ask whether it is not better that men should not be killed riding on second-hand machines than that I should be accused of making accusations against the Secretary of State?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was in error.
    Captain FABER: Was or was not this man killed while using a machine which was bought second-hand?
    Mr. LEE: May I ask whether the system of inspection has been overhauled or improved since this accident took place? Is it not a fact that, although inspection was carried out, a defect in the machine on which Lieutenant Arthur was killed was not discovered, and does not that point to the necessity of improving the system of inspection hitherto in force?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt correct in saying that unfortu-
    1048
    nately this accident did take place after inspection had been made. That clearly points to the necessity of the inspection being made as perfect as possible. That, of course, is done. I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that no one regrets these accidents more than we do.
    Mr. HUNT: Do the War Office buy second-hand machines, or do they not?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, that is not the rule.
    Captain FABER: Were not eight machines bought, of which seven had to be overhauled before they were used?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.

    PERMISSION TO FLY THAMES.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War why a French aeronaut was officially allowed to fly down the Thames, though this very privilege was refused to Mr. Grahame-White, one of our most experienced fliers?
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War whether a foreign aviator received permission to fly down the Thames, although an Englishman was refused the same permission; and whether, seeing that the Aerial Navigation Act was originally intended, to preclude foreign aviators from flying over certain localities in England, he will explain why British aviators should be prevented from having that continual practice which is necessary for adequate training?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. The Home Secretary grants the exemptions, though he can do so only on the recommendation of the Admiralty or War Office. I presume both questions refer to the cases of M. Levasseur and Mr. Grahame-White. M. Levasseur flew over the prohibited areas on the Thames without an exemption, and was prosecuted for the offence. Afterwards, on his making a proper application, he was allowed to return to France under an exemption, which was subject to special conditions prescribed by the War Office. Mr. Grahame-White, when he came over from France, failed to make any proper application for an exemption. A telephone message sent at the last moment by his London manager gave no particulars

    1049
    on which an exemption could be given. A few days later, when he applied to the Home Office for an exemption, giving proper notice and reasonable grounds for the application, the exemption was at once granted.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the French aeronaut, having once flown over a prohibited area, and so broken the law, was told to break the law again by flying back, while Mr. Grahame-White, though a British subject, was not allowed to break the law at all?
    Mr. McKENNA: The French aeronaut was not breaking the law, for he had on the second time of flying received an exemption. Mr. Grahame-White, in similar circumstances, having given proper notice and stated grounds for his application, was at once granted permission. They were both put on precisely the same footing.

    HYDROPLANES.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for War what is the object of the regulations to prevent flying in hydroplanes over the estuary of the Thames and round the coast; if he is aware that these regulations are a serious blow to the aeroplane and waterplane industry; and whether it is proposed to withdraw or amend them shortly?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Regulations and Orders made by the Home Office prohibit flight over certain areas constituting a small portion of the coast line in the interests of national safety. The reply to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. FELL: What are the interest of national safety? Is it that these aeroplanes might discover the secret of our defences or that they would interfere with the navigation of the river?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.
    Mr. HUNT: What is the object of preventing our own airmen flying over our own country?

    MILITARY AVIATION (TOTAL EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the total expenditure during the past financial year and the total provision for the current financial year for purposes of
    1050
    military aviation, including aviation stations, in France, Germany, and Great Britain, respectively?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to state with any approach to accuracy the sums expended on aeronautical services by the foreign countries mentioned. As regards Great Britain, the hon. Gentleman will find figures comparing the year in question on page 3 of the memorandum on Army Estimates (Command 6688).

    Mr. Channing Arnold's Imprisonment.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether Mr. A. W. Buchanan, the sub-divisional officer at Victoria Point, Burma, who issued the warrant for the arrest of McCormick in the case which led to the imprisonment of Mr. Channing Arnold, was first transferred to another district and afterwards superseded; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have telegraphed for information, but have not yet received the answer. If my hon. Friend will put down his Question again for next Tuesday, I hope to be able to answer it.
    Mr. MORRELL: Does my right hon. Friend still expect to be able to reply then?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is telegraphic communication between this country and India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Wherever the Secretary of State thinks it necessary he telegraphs, but, as I have already stated in the House this afternoon, it is not necessary to continue to worry the Governor of India with telegrams.

    South Africa (Strike of Miners).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked how many of His Majesty's troops were killed or wounded in the late fighting in Johannesburg; and what troops were actually engaged in the shootings?
    Mr. TENNANT: Three officers and twenty-four other ranks were wounded. I have not yet received precise information as to the units present at the points where conflict occurred.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it part of the regular duties of these men to go to the aid of the

    1051
    civil power in such a case, and if not, is any sanction obtained from the authorities at home before they are so employed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked if the Secretary of State for the Colonies will say how many so-called agitators are now in custody in South Africa either sentenced or awaiting trial; how many of these are trade union officials and how many women; and, if any have been sentenced, will he inquire under what law they have been sentenced and lay copies of that law upon the Table?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no present information on the subject. If and when I receive it I will inform the hon. Member.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for information on the subject by telegram?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have asked for full information.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Including what measures are to be taken after the trouble is over?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I hope to get full information on the subject.

    Income Tax (Duke of Beaufort).
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Commissioners have still the right to assess persons with incomes over £5,000 per annum on the gross amount of their incomes, and will not allow the Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £ to be deducted first?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Super-tax is assessable on the basis of Section 66 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and that Section does not provide for the deduction of Income Tax in calculating income for assessment to the Super-tax, which is defined as "an additional duty of Income Tax."
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case that I have alluded to?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has reference to mineral rights—a totally different point.

    Home Office.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if the powers exercised by the Home Secretary in connection with the administration of justice and in other matters with which the Home Office is concerned are derived from Statute or arise from practice; if from Parliamentary enactment or resolution, will he give particulars of the same; and if, in view of the tendency in this and other Departments of the Government to extend the limits of authority of the heads of such departments and to encroach upon the duties of the executive services he will cause a short memorandum to be prepared defining the powers of the Home Secretary and other Ministers, and indicating the origin thereof?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The powers of the Home Secretary depend partly on common law and constitutional practice, and partly on Statute. I could not undertake to define these powers in a brief memorandum, but the hon. Member will find information on the main points in the standard text books on the Constitution.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the necessarily novel character of the provisions of a Bill creating an elective Second Chamber, he can see his way to indicate to the House, before the Adjournment, the lines upon which the proposals of the Government are likely to proceed, or, failing this, whether any such indication will be made public during the Recess, so as to secure adequate public consideration and discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government intend to place before the House next Session their proposals on the subject, and I am not prepared to anticipate them.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to the provisions of Lord Lansdowne's Bill, especially to the provisions excluding all Members of the present House of Lords, except a hundred, from occupying seats in the Second Chamber?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They will all be taken into account.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the discussion of the Motion of Instruction to the Committee on the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member fur Newton?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Instruction referred to appears to be outside the scope of the Bill, nor am I aware of any general desire to amend Part II. of the Act, which is quite separate from Part I., both as regards subject matter and administration.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of order has been submitted to Mr. Speaker, who has not yet given a definite ruling on the point, and what is the use of the Instruction being in order if no time is given for discussing it? Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to give time for discussing it if it is ruled in order?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any such promise. I cannot presume to express an opinion on the question of order, but I think that it would unduly enlarge the discussion.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave dissatisfaction exists in regard to certain Sections of Part II. of the National Insurance Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That may be, but it ought to form the subject of a separate Bill.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to give notice, in view of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment of the Debate.

    Industrial and Provident Societies.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Prime Minister whether he has any reason to believe that there is opposition to the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill (Bill 129); and whether, in the event of there being no opposition, he will give facilities to secure its passing into law in the present Session?
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to give
    1054
    facilities for the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill during the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Members to what I said yesterday with regard to this Bill.

    Putumayo Atrocities.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked whether time can be provided before the end of the Session for the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Putumayo atrocities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid the time at the disposal of the Government is too limited to allow of time being given for the discussion of their Report.

    Destruction of Fishing Nets (Wick).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the skipper of the fishing boat "Mafeking," BF 430, who suffered damage to the extent of £40 through a trawler running across his nets, promptly notified the fishery officer and the Customs officer at Wick of the number and name of the trawler; and whether, in view of the fact that the number of the trawl vessel is known to the authorities, he will take steps to obtain compensation for the owner?
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a report was made to the Fishery and Customs officials at Wick regarding the recent destruction of the nets of the fishing boat "Mafeking" by a trawler; that the name and number of the offending vessel were communicated to the officials in question, but that they declined to do anything in the matter; and what steps he proposes to take to secure redress for the fishermen concerned?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My information is, that the fishery officer referred the skipper to the collector of Customs, within whose province, as superintendent of mercantile marine, the matter fell. The Board would be pleased to give any assistance in their power to obtain compensation, but from previous experience they believe that the claim could not be enforced without legal proceedings, and they have no power to institute the necessary proceedings. Such proceedings would require to be taken by the owners of the fishing boat.
    Mr. MUNRO: If I furnish the Secretary for Scotland with the name and number of the offending vessel, will he take steps to secure compensation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid that I cannot do that. It is part of my answer that the Board have no power to institute legal proceedings.

    State Loans to Fishermen.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Departmental Committee on State Loans for Fishermen intend to report this Session of Parliament; and, if not, will he use his influence to get the Committee to report forthwith?
    Mr. MUNROasked on what date the Committee which is considering inter alia the question of State loans to fishermen completed taking evidence on the subject remitted to it; on what dates it has met to consider the Report which it proposes to issue; and whether, looking to the urgency of the matter and to the delay which has elapsed since the Committee was appointed, the Secretary for Scotland will take steps to secure the acceleration of its proceedings?
    Mr. AINSWORTHasked how soon the Secretary for Scotland expects the Departmental Committee on State Loans to Fishermen will be in a position to issue their Report; and whether this Report will explain the principle on which these advances can be made and what security can be given to prevent possible eventual loss to the taxpayer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the Report is nearly complete and that the Committee is to meet again in a few days. I cannot, of course, state what will be contained in the Report.

    Calton Gaol, Edinburgh (New Site).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether A new site has yet been found for the Calton Gaol; and, if so, when will the work commence?
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether a site has now been chosen for the new prison; and, if so, whether he can make any statement as to its whereabouts?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The subject of a new site has been receiving consideration, but I am not as yet in a position to make any statement in the matter.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is there any difficulty in getting money for the purpose?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to answer that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any definite announcement on this particular subject-on the Scottish Estimates?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will try to do so.

    Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society have made any Report of the work done by that body, and of the manner in which the Grant made to them by the Development Commissioners or the Scottish Board of Agriculture has been administered?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think there has been time for such a Report to be made. The Grant from the Development Fund will be expended in accordance with conditions framed by the Development Commissioners and approved by the Treasury.
    Mr. HOGGEasked if the Secretary for Scotland will state how many rural credit banks and local agricultural cooperative credit societies, respectively, are now registered in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there are any at present, but, as I have stated, the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to ascertain if there are any?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think there are any. We are in negotiation about the matter.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many small holdings exist in Scotland at the present time; and what is the total acreage?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The number of agricultural holdings in Scotland exceeding one and not exceeding fifty acres, as returned in 1912, was 51,866. The total acreage of each class of holdings has

    1057
    not been ascertained annually. A Return was, however, obtained in 1908 in connection with the Census of Production, when the total acreage under crops and permanent grass was 697,000, besides 3,900,000 acres of mountain and heath land used for grazing.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Was;this land suitable?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The land was suitable, and was used for grazing.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission said that the land was suitable for this purpose?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is being used for this purpose.

    Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state when the additions to the staff of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will be made?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh last Tuesday, these appointments will be made as soon as practicable. Many applications for the outdoor posts have been received, and likely candidates are being interviewed by the Board. Some of the indoor posts have been filled by promotion and others will be filled by the Civil Service Commissioners in the ordinary way.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will these posts for the new Sub-Commissioners and new Commissioners be advertised?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.

    Offences against Children.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that several cases have lately occurred in Scotland of men who have been often convicted of offences against children repeating these offences on release from prison; and if he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation by which such men might be kept in perpetual confinement?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am aware that cases have occurred of men who have been convicted more than once of such offences as are referred to by the Noble Lord. In such cases it is the invariable practice to label the previous convictions which are taken into account in imposing
    1058
    sentence, and it is competent under the existing law to impose penal servitude for life on conviction of rape. As at present advised I am not disposed to think that such legislation as the Noble Lord suggests is necessary, but the question which he raises will be considered in connection with legislation at present passing through the House.

    Regent's Park.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether the rental of £950 per annum for Bedford College was the amount originally and independently proposed by the Crown surveyor as the full market value of the premises of South Villa; whether he is aware that the rateable value of these premises, which included a much smaller area of buildings, was £l,375 per annum; and whether the Office of Woods stated in 1908 that this assessment might be taken as an indication of their present value for letting?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): When the agreement for a new lease was negotiated there was outstanding a lease at £333 per annum for a term expiring 10th October, 1924. It was part of the agreement that that lease should be surrendered, and allowance for the value of the unexpired term, had, of course, to be made in fixing the new rent. That value and the rent of £950 per annum (the amount originally and independently proposed by the Commissioners of Woods) equalled the rateable value of £1,375 per annum which was considered the full rental value of the premises of South Villa.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the President of the Board of Agriculture will undertake, on behalf of the Office of Woods and Forests, that no alteration shall be made in the terms on which the following premises are held without ample public notice being given: the Royal Toxophilite Society's grounds, the two enclosures along the lake on the south-west of Regent's Park, the Royal Botanic Society's gardens, and the Baptist College premises?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no probability at the present time of the terms, on which the premises, mentioned by my hon. Friend are held, being altered, except that a portion of the land now held by the Toxophilite Society will shortly be added to the open park. I do not know precisely

    1059
    what is meant to be implied by the phrase "ample public notice," but I may point out that full particulars have been given and will readily be given in the future of any alterations contemplated in these tenancies.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Royal Botanic Society has carried out the schemes for extending the educational advantages of the gardens, and more especially the scheme for the formation of a botanic institute, proposed in 1897, when an extended lease was under consideration; whether the financial condition of the society, then a matter of concern to the Office of Woods, is now satisfactory; whether the society in 1901 was prohibited from using the premises otherwise than for the purpose of a botanic garden without the previous consent in writing of the Office of Woods; what other uses that office has sanctioned in writing; and whether there are any botanists with degrees or diplomas of any kind on the executive committee of the society?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Royal Botanic Society has not, so far as I am aware, extended the educational advantages of the gardens, and the scheme for the formation of a Botanic Institute (which would have involved the erection of more buildings) fell through. Bonâ fide students from recognised schools or colleges are admitted to the gardens by passes granted free of charge for the purposes of study, and a large number of botanical specimens are given away annually by the society to students and others. The Office of Woods has no reason to consider the present financial condition of the society to be unsatisfactory. No consent in writing appears to have been given by the Office of Woods to the use of the gardens otherwise than for the purpose of a Botanic Garden, but it is known that for a long period the gardens have been used for some other purposes not interfering with the main purposes of the gardens, and no objection has been taken by that Department. I am not aware that there are any botanists with degrees or diplomas on the council of the society.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that this society is a bonâ fide botanical society?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason for saying whether it is or is not, but I believe it is what it purports to be in the lease.

    Tithe Redemption.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture will state under what Act tithe redemption is demanded by the Board in the case of small owners; why it is so demanded; and how many aggrieved persons have protested in reference to it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The compulsory redemption of tithe rent-charge is only ordered by the Board, on the application of tithe-payers or tithe-owners, when they are satisfied that the conditions laid down by the Tithe Acts, 1860 and 1878, exist. These conditions are, in substance, that the tithe rent-charge on particular lands is so small that further sub-division is impossible, or that unreasonable difficulty and expense in collection are proved. When redemption on the application of the tithe-owner, under these conditions, is ordered, objections are in some cases received from the landowners concerned, and such objections are always carefully considered by the Board. It would be impracticable, without prolonged search, to state in how many cases such objections have been received.

    Bee Disease Bill.
    Captain MURRAYasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture can give any indication as to the extent of the opposition to the Bee Disease Bill; and whether, if the opposition does not represent the vast bulk of bee-keepers in all parts of the country, he will proceed with the Bill at all costs this Session?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no means of measuring the extent of the opposition outside of the House to this Bill. But I find that it comes mainly from some gentlemen whose bees have not yet been visited by Isle of Wight disease.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed with the Bill?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If it could be treated as an unopposed Bill I should be delighted to see it pass.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large meetings in the country have opposed the Bill, and in view of the fact that there can be no opportunity of the Bill going through as an unopposed measure, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing it this Session and appointing a Departmental Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot agree that the Bill has been opposed at large meetings in the country. The largest meetings in England and Scotland have petitioned very strongly in its favour. The Bill has been considered very fully by a Committee, and I can make no other proposal for dealing with it.

    Portuguese Slave Traders.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state or will he ascertain for the information of this House how many slaves were bought from or sold to the Portuguese slave traders found guilty and punished in Barotseland in February last for slave trading?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 21st January last Mr. M'Kinnon, the magistrate at Ngambala, Barotseland, arrested twenty-one persons engaged in acts of slave trading with Portuguese slave traders in West Africa; whether he has yet received a Report upon the action of Mr. M'Kinnon; and, if so, whether he has drawn the attention of the Foreign Office to these slave trading practices in British territory which are being fostered by Portuguese over the border?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have telegraphed for information with regard to the incident referred to, but it has not yet reached me.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Foreign Office in view of the consequences and responsibilities involved?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As soon as I have got the information I will communicate with the authorities.

    Nigerian Courts of Law (Death Penalty).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether it is intended to alter the conditions under which the death penalty may be imposed by Nigerian Courts of Law; and, if so, in what respect?
    Mr. HARCOURT: At present the organisation of the system of Courts of Justice in the adjoining territories of Northern and Southern Nigeria is widely different, and the Governor has made certain recommendations which, if carried
    1062
    out, would assimilate the systems as far as possible. These proposals are under consideration, but there is no intention to relax in any way the stringency of the limitations under which the death penalty may be imposed.

    House of Commons (Engravings).
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will say what is the total number of engravings now hung in the precincts of the House; whether a record is kept of them; and whether they are fully insured?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The total number of the engravings in the House of Commons is 418, and they are catalogued in a card index in the Library. In accordance with the usual Government practice, they are not insured. Other fifty engravings have just been hung in the Harcourt Room corridor, and the First Commissioner feels sure will be greatly appreciated by Members. These fifty complete a total of several hundreds of valuable engravings of Members of Parliament for which the House is indebted to the generosity of the hon Baronet the Member for South Derbyshire (Sir Herbert Raphael).

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEAT SUPPLY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what was the average price paid by Government for the men in the Navy for beef from abroad last year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No imported (dead) beef is supplied to His Majesty's ships in Home waters, except canned beef, to which it is presumed the question does not apply. As I explained to the House in answer to a question addressed to me on 10th June by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, the bulk of the fresh beef supplied is killed at the Naval Victualling yards, the animals being raised in this country. At certain other ports where the requirements are not so considerable, the contractors are at liberty to supply fresh beef either from Home-raised beasts killed locally or from beasts imported alive and killed at the port of debarka-

    1063
    tion. It is known that the former alternative is largely used, but as there is no reliable information as to the extent to which contractors avail themselves of the latter alternative, the average price paid for beef produced from animals killed at the port of debarkation cannot be ascertained.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand from that that sailors are supplied with better food than soldiers, as the right hon. Gentleman says they cannot get beef for sailors at the price the Army pays?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. I hope they are both well fed.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact or not that the sailors are not fed on beef at the price at which soldiers are fed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have told the hon. Member that I cannot give him the prices, but as I have said in a previous answer, the great bulk of it is Home grown. I believe certainly that the sailors are well fed and I have no reason to suppose that the soldiers are not well fed.

    CROMARTY FORTS.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has recently acquired land at Cromarty for fortification purposes; if so, will he say how much land has been acquired; at what price has it been acquired; what was the rateable value of the farm or farms of which this land formed part; and by how much has this rateable value been reduced by reason of the severance and sale?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Ninety-four acres, comprising several detached plots, were taken by the Admiralty, under the Defence Acts, from a property of which the total rateable value, including shootings, is given in the valuation roll as £l,009 10s. The price to be paid has not yet been fixed, but in default of agreement will be settled by arbitration or by a jury. The latter part of the question therefore does not as yet arise.

    MANŒUVRES (SEA LORDS).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Sea Lords of the Admiralty are to assume commands of fleets at sea for the naval manœuvres; if so, will he state what command is allotted to
    1064
    each Sea Lord; and what is the purpose of this arrangement?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The Second Sea Lord will command the Bed Fleet at the manœuvres, and the Third Sea Lord will command the Seventh Cruiser Squadron in the Blue Feet during the same period. I attach importance to this arrangement, which secures the closest connection between the Sea Lords and the fleets at sea, and enables officers whose administrative services are of exceptional value to the Admiralty to keep themselves abreast of the latest developments of steam tactics.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the appointment of the Third Sea Lord displaces any officer who would have a command in the Fleet should it be required in war?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All that has been considered.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is prepared to state what is the scheme and purpose of the naval manœuvres this year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. According to the usual practice of the Admiralty, the grand manœuvres will be treated as confidential exercises.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the purpose of the manœuvres, or one of the purposes, is to train officers and men of the Fleet under conditions approximating to war with officers in command of the units which they would command in war?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have stated the manœuvres will be confidential, and I should be stultifying that decision if I discussed them in any aspect.

    ARMED MERCHANT VESSELS (WHITE STAR LINE).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the liner "Ceramic," which has been armed in accordance with the recent declared policy of arming British ships which carry foodstuffs, belongs to the White Star line; whether shares in that line are owned or controlled by a foreign corporation; and whether he can state what steps have been taken to ensure that the "Ceramic" shall continue under the British flag and shall in the event of any war in which this country is engaged be available as a ship carrying food to this country and be subject to the control of the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. It is understood that shares in the line are held by a foreign corporation. Under the agreement the vessels of the line fly the British flag, and can only transfer their vessels to a foreign flag with the consent of the Board of Trade. This agreement applies to the "Ceramic."
    Mr. COOPER: Is it not the fact that this company is controlled by foreign interests, and that in the event of those guns being wanted there might be some doubt as to whether the Admiralty could properly control them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All that has been very carefully considered. The result of the consideration which the subject has received is that we think it very reasonable and prudent to mount a small number of guns in the White Star line when the owners of that line think it convenient.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us how he can prevent this company from selling those ships if they have control of them?
    Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that the agreement prevents the White Star Company selling those ships for a space of twenty years, and that it is quite impossible for them to be sold to a foreign country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has answered the question.

    PORTSMOUTH AND EASTNEY BARRACKS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what percentage of the men in the Portsmouth naval barracks and Eastney Royal Marine barracks were convicted of punishable offences between the dates 1st January to 30th June, 1913?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The conditions at the Royal naval barracks, Portsmouth, and at Eastney are so different in respect of the length of service, time in barracks, and other circumstances affecting the respective personnels, that any comparison based on figures would, I think, be entirely misleading.

    Educational Endowment Schemes.
    Mr. HADDOCKasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state when he will be able to consider and approve the new endowment schemes for
    1066
    the following schools in North Lonsdale: School No. 2, Dalton Church of England school; No. 3, Dalton-in-Furness, Ireleth, Church of England school; No. 12, Lower Allithwaite, Cartmel, Church of England school; No. 15, Blawith provided school;. Nos, 16 and 17, West Broughton, Authhurstside, and West Broughton, Broughton-in-Furness, Church of England schools; No. 18, Cartmel Fell Church of England school; No. 20, Claip, Sawrey, endowment school; No. 26, Dunnerdale-with-Southwaite provided school; No. 35r Osmotherley, Broughton Beck, school; No. 36, Pennington, Ulverston, school; No. 39, Staveley-in-Cartmel Church of England school; No. 40, Torver Church of England school; and Nos. 41 and 42, Urswick grammar school and Urswick, Bardsea, Church of England school?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): A scheme has been made for the endowments connected with the school referred to as No. 40. Applications for schemes have not been received in the other cases mentioned, except for the endowments connected with the schools Nos. 2, 12, and 20, and for some of the endowments connected with those numbered 16 and 17. In several of the other cases schemes are not required as there is no difficulty in carrying out the existing trusts. The Board have found it impossible to deal systematically with the large number of small elementary endowments.
    Mr. HADDOCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of those applications date from 1905?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I was not aware they went so far back.

    Education (Special Grants).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount of the Grant proposed to be applied to the conduct of experiments in the field of education; whether this Grant will be administered and applied by the local education authorities; how will it be apportioned; and in respect of experiments, of what character will it be applicable?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Special Grants under the new Article 31* of the Code. The total amount available for the first year for Special Grants under that Article is £1,000. Grants will be payable to local

    1067
    education authorities in aid of expenditure incurred by them upon educational experiments directed to the improvement of the education of scholars in public elementary schools. The Board desire to keep themselves perfectly free to consider applications of all kinds from local education authorities, and it would, therefore, be impossible to make any definite statement in answer to the third and fourth parts of the question.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that £l,000 will not go far amongst the large number of educational authorities?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: We shall see when we have experience of the first year how far the money can be usefully used.

    Falkirk Post Office.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state precisely the present unit value of the work credited to the Falkirk Post Office for the purposes of classification; whether he will give particulars of the unit value of the work performed at the local telephone exchange; whether this work has recently been diverted from the aggregate calculation for the head office; and, if so, whether it was done with the object of keeping the figures below 240, and thus obviating the necessity for a re-classification?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The present unit value of the work at Falkirk for purposes of classification is estimated at 249 units, according to the latest figures available. Of this total, the trunk telephone work performed at the local exchange represents about seven units. Other trunk work, representing thirty-six units, is performed at the Post Office. It is proposed to divert certain trunk work from Falkirk for the purpose of improving the service, and the effect of this diversion, which has no reference whatever to the question of classification, will be to reduce the number of units at work at Falkirk, in the near future, below the number required to warrant the higher classification.

    Telephone Service.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can yet furnish any information as to the circumstances
    1068
    surrounding the case of a lady who endeavoured to ring up 657 Western, in order to give a call for a doctor, but was, after considerable delay, cut off from communication before a reply could be received, into which he promised, on 24th June last, to make inquiry?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The telephonist who dealt with this call states that she answered the call as soon as the signal was received, but had some difficulty in hearing what the subscriber said, and, afterwards, in replying, owing to the fact that the subscriber continued to agitate the receiver hook. When she succeeded in ascertaining the required number a satisfactory conversation was held, although the called subscriber took some time to answer. It is understood that the doctor received the message and at once visited his patient, and it is thought that the communication was severed by the doctor, who, having received the message, replaced the telephone on the hook. The suggestion in a paragraph in the "Daily Mail" that the patient died owing to the failure to secure the attention of the doctor on the telephone is untrue. The call was not well handled by the telephonist, and she has accordingly been seriously reprimanded.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a subscriber, No. 5273 Mayfair, endeavouring to call No. 4321 Gerrard, a private branch exchange, on Saturday, 5th July, was unable to obtain any reply from the Mayfair exchange for a considerable time; that after giving the number another three minutes elapsed, at the end of which the subscriber asked for an explanation of the delay and was requested by the exchange to repeat the number, no explanation being given; that the number was only finally obtained by application to the clerk in charge; and that the subscriber's request that the facts be investigated and an explanation given has been disregarded; and whether he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the circumstances?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find that two unsuccessful attempts were made by the telephonist of Mayfair Telephone Exchange to connect No. 5273 Mayfair with No. 4321 Gerrard. The subscriber was then connected to the Enquiry Desk in the Mayfair Exchange and the connection was made. Although the most careful inquiries have been made, it has not been

    1069
    possible to discover the precise reason for the failure of the first two calls. The Supervising Officer at Mayfair pursued the matter further with Gerrard Exchange and subsequently rang up the subscriber to explain what had been done, but he had in the meantime left the premises. The matter was then referred to the officer in control of the Exchange, who, unfortunately, overlooked the request for a written reply.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would not have been necessary for me to have troubled him at all if any explanation had been sent by the Exchange?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. I am very sorry that was overlooked in this case owing, I am told, to pressure of work, but it ought not to have been overlooked.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General if he will lay upon the Table of the House all the correspondence which has taken place between his Department and the British representative of the Goldschmidt system concerning Imperial wireless service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I have already stated in answer to a question yesterday, I propose to lay the correspondence with other Papers on the Table of the House at an early date.
    Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether the Goldschmidt Company has as yet made any offer of a definite test; and what answer the Post Office has returned; and (2) whether he has submitted to his expert advisers the desirability of throwing open to public tender the contract for the Imperial chain, in view of the fact that a wireless system, other than the Marconi, has succeeded in establishing communication across the Atlantic, and over a distance much greater than any hitherto covered between regular stations; and what action he proposes to take in the event of the test of the Goldschmidt system proving satisfactory?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In reply to these questions I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
    Captain FABER: Would it not be possible to throw open this contract to other systems, seeing that the Marconi Company are promised 10 per cent, on the gross receipts instead of net receipts, whereas other companies might come in on better terms?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I gave a very full reply yesterday as to the objections to calling for tenders.
    Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what I have said about the 10 per cent, on gross receipts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. I have had it particularly in mind for nearly two years.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in May, 1911, the Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence urged the creation of long-range wireless stations, that seven months later the Committee of Imperial Defence itself similarly recommended this step, and that the Post Office eight months later still produced the first Marconi contract and waited yet another eight months before evolving the second, whether there is any special reason now for precipitate action involving the grant of a monopoly to one system to the exclusion from tendering of another which claims to be able to tender with the certainty of satisfying all the conditions of the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The delay which has already unfortunately occurred is an additional reason against further delay. There is no question of precipitate action or of the grant of any monopoly.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was decided under all circumstances to give a monopoly to the Marconi Company, and whether this is due to the fact that their manager knows so much about Ministerial investments?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no question of any monopoly whatever.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the proprietors of the Goldschmidt system of wireless telegraphy are willing to guarantee the required speed in transmission and reception of wireless messages laid down as necessary under the terms of the Marconi Contract, and are willing to

    1071
    tender and to start construction of stations at once, he will take steps which will allow the proprietors of the said Goldschmidt system competing for the contract for the Imperial wireless service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I have previously stated in the House, and as I have informed the English representatives of the Goldschmidt system, I am unable to consider the use of that system for the purposes of the Imperial stations until my representatives have witnessed an adequate demonstration of the working of the system. A guarantee on the part of the company without such a demonstration is not sufficient.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand that the contract with the Marconi Company will not be completed until the Goldschmidt people have had a fair opportunity of demonstrating fully to the Post Office their means of transmitting and receiving messages?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say that the matter will be held back until the Goldschmidt Company are in a position to offer a demonstration. I invited them to give me a demonstration last week, but they are unable to do so until some weeks hence.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the Goldschmidt Company are prepared to give a demonstration the first week in August?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They say that they will be able to give a demonstration the first week in August, but as Parliament will rise about the middle of August, if I waited until then for a demonstration, it would be impossible to give the House time to deal with the matter this Session, and it would mean the postponement of the whole question for nine months, and possibly for twelve.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Could not a tender be accepted conditionally on the practical test being carried out, and the contract, after that condition has been carried out, put through before the House rises?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. I have not sufficient confidence in the test being successful to make it reasonable to adopt such a suggestion.

    Telegraph Service.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the county borough council of Limerick, calling attention to the want of increased telegraphic facilities in the city of Limerick and asking that those facilities should be increased; whether he is aware that there are only four telegraphic offices in the city outside of the general post office; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing an increase of at least four offices, thus giving one to each of the eight wards in. the city?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention, has been drawn to the resolution in question. It has been necessary to call for returns of telegraphic traffic at various local centres, and they are not yet complete. I will inform the hon. Member of the result of the inquiry as soon as possible.

    Postal Service (Limerick).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a memorial sent by the inhabitants of the Irishtown ward, in the city of Limerick, asking that a sub-post office be established in this ward; is he aware that this memorial has been extensively signed by the principal people in. this ward, including clergymen, traders, shopkeepers, and householders; and, seeing that there is a population of about 5,000 persons in this ward, that the want of a post office is a drawback to the people, and taking all the circumstances into account, whether a sub-post office will be granted to this ward?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Inquiries are being made in the matter, and returns of the work done are being taken, but I am not yet in a position to state whether I should be justified in complying with the wishes of the memorialists.

    Port of London Authority (Import and Export Charges).
    Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total sum derived from charges, dues, etc., port rates, and import charges on goods warehoused, levied by the Port of London Authority in the year ended 31st March, 1913 (or in the latest year for which figures are available), on foodstuffs, raw materials and manufactured articles, respectively,

    1073
    as classified in the annual statement of trade, giving the particulars separately for imports coastwise, imports from places outside the United Kingdom, exports coastwise, and exports to places outside the United Kingdom?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am informed by the Port of London Authority that their accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1913, are not yet published, and that their books and records do not show how much of their revenue is derived from foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactured articles, respectively, and do not distinguish between the revenue derived from coastwise and that derived from oversea imports and exports. The total sum derived from charges, dues, etc., port rates and import charges on goods warehoused, levied by the Port of London Authority in the year ended 31st March, 1912, is shown in the Third Annual Report of the Authority, which was presented to Parliament in February last (Parliamentary Paper, No. 523).
    Mr. COOPER: Is it not a fact that officials of the Board of Trade have places on the Port of London Authority, and would it not be possible through them to obtain the information?
    Mr. BUXTON: There is no representative of the Board of Trade on the Port of London Authority. We have power to appoint certain persons, but they are not representatives of the Board of Trade, and we have no control over them after they are appointed. But I will call the attention of the Port Authority to the hon. Member's request, and see how far they can comply with it.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Has not this information been asked for for nine months? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Port Authority that they might supply the House with these figures?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Prime Minister state the business for Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee stage of the Financial Resolution on the Insurance Act Amendment Bill.
  Mr. GRETTON: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: When the Revenue Bill will be printed and circulated amongst Members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that it will be circulated either at the end of this week or certainly at the beginning of next.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  BOROUGIL FUNDS BILL.
  "To amend the Borough Funds Acts, 1872 and 1903." Presented by Mr. GEORGE THORNE; supported by Sir John Harmood-Banner, Mr. Middlebrook, and Lord Alexander Thynne; to be read a second time upon Monday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWEKS AND DRAINS) BILL.
  "To amend the Public Health Acts with respect to Sewers and Drains." Presented by Mr. GEORGE THORNE; supported by Sir Thomas Roe, Sir Charles Nicholson, Sir John Harmood-Banner, Sir Alfred Cripps, Sir Luke White, and Lord Alexander Thynne; to be read a second time upon Monday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Public Health as respects the Treatment and Prevention of Disease." Presented by Mr. JOHN BURNS; supported by Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

NATIONAL ROADS.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for certain roads to be declared National Roads, and for other purposes incidental thereto."
This Bill is a natural corollary to the Development and Roads Improvment Fund
1090
Act, 1909, and its object is to provide relief to the local authorities in the maintenance of main roads by means of the machinery created under that Act. The House will be aware that owing to the policy of the Road Board there has not been much relief given to local authorities under the Road Board Act. The Road Board have spent about £3,500,000 up to the 30th June of this year, but the expenses of local authorities have grown quite pari passu with the expenditure of the Road Board, having increased from £2,500,000 in 1906–7 to over £3,000,000 in 1910–11. No doubt the amount has further increased in 1911–12 and 1912–13, but the figures are not yet available. The reason why the Road Grant has not given relief to the local authorities is that the Road Board insist that there should be an expenditure by the local authorities proportionate to the Grant given by the Board. Moreover, that expenditure is not to be for ordinary maintenance, but only for road improvements, straightening corners, and, so forth. Nobody will deny that Government Grants for roads have become more and more insufficient. Orginally it was supposed that the Government Grant would be half the cost of the main roads, and it was that originally in 1888. But every year since then the amount available for the relief of main roads has diminshed, and the balance of the Exchequer Contribution Account, has not been sufficient for a great many years past to contribute half the cost of main roads from the National Exchequer as was intended. As a matter of fact there is a large deficit on that account to-day, and the deficit appears to be increasing year by year. That is not satisfactory, especially at a time when it is becoming more and more obvious from the nature of the traffic that main roads are really a national burden.
The through motor traffic is undoubtedly increasing, and it does not need argument to show that as a matter of fact it is unfair to call upon a particular local authority to contribute for the maintenance of a road which serves for through traffic coming from one local authority to another throughout the country. It was recommended by the Royal Commission that main roads should be regarded as a national service. The object of this Bill is to give frank recognition to that fact, and to provide that the expenditure on these roads should be entirely national. Of course, when you centralise expenditure the problem of administration at once

1091
arises. Some people perhaps, naturally, would prefer that when expenditure is centralised, that administration should, to a large extent, remain local. In some forms of expenditure that might be necessary. For instance, in the case of education, no matter how much the central Grant might be it would still be necessary that the Education Acts should be largely administered locally. I do not think that in the case of the main roads there is any insuperable objection to centralising administration as well as to centralising expenditure. On the contrary, it appears to me there are a good many reasons why and a good many advantages in these main roads being administered centrally, as well as paid for centrally. If you are going to give complete relief to local authority for these trunk roads, I see no objection why, and it seems to me logical, that the administration should also be completely central.
Therefore, I propose in this Bill that the Road Board should administer and maintain any roads declared by order to be main roads, that is to be national roads; and a national road is a road which is largely used as a medium of communication between the areas of several highway authorities. I propose, also, that highway authorities should also have the power to apply to the Road Board to have certain roads within their area made national roads. There are provisions in the Bill which provide that the approval of the Treasury must be obtained to the creation of these roads into national roads, and that the Local Government Board must be consulted. There are also various provisions for notice to highway authorities, and for local inquiries for the purpose of hearing objections. The main operative Clause of this Bill is one which gives the same powers for the maintenance of roads declared national to the Road Board, as the Road Board at present has under the principal Act, for roads which it itself constructs. There are other details with which I need not trouble the House, such as provisions to ensure that on these national roads, on going through urban areas, the dust nuisance should be abated, provisions to acquire land, provisions apportioning the existing liabilities which are now held by local authorities, and compensation to officers who may be displaced in the same way as officers were compensated under the Act of 1888. It is provided that the expenses of administration shall come out
1092
of the Road Board Fund, and that their borrowing powers should be increased from £200,000, as given in the principal Act, to the sum of £500,000. I think this Bill will have the effect largely of remedying one of many grievances which the local authorities suffer from. It seems to be a logical Bill, and one which the present day trend of traffic appears to me to make necessary.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Helmsley, Sir Randolf Baker. Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Hicks Beach, and Mr. Charles Bathurst. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I am rather surprised that no Member of the Front Bench opposite has arisen to explain in detail the provisions of the Bill which we are now asked to read a second time. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a short preparatory speech in introducing the Bill, under the Ten-Minute Rule, a speech in which he summarised, though he did not explain, the provisions of the Bill. I am rather astonished that nobody on the Front Bench opposite has thought it worth while to get up and carry the matter a little further on the present occasion. I can only suppose that the Government realise the complete unanimity which exists throughout the country as to the necessity for making alterations in the present law, and that they feel assured that they have only to produce any Amending Bill to make certain of its receiving a Second Reading. There is no doubt about the completeness of the unanimity. The Government may search the country from one end to the other without being able to find a single individual who is satisfied with the present condition of affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I think it is not altogether without significance that we are asked to read this Amending Bill for a second time upon the-first anniversary of "Joy-day." [An HON. MEMBER: "And it is St. Swithin's Day."]

1093
I do not know whether festivities, bonfires, and silver cups are as much in evidence this year as they were last. It would be a strange development of our proceedings if the anniversary of Joy-day witnessed year after year—as well may be the case—Amending Bills brought in to make further rearrangements. I should have been very glad to hear from the Government some explanation, some reasons given for the particular amending proposals they have selected to deal with, and why it is they have selected these particular points only, while they undoubtedly have left untouched a great many of the larger questions which must have forced themselves upon their notice as well as they have upon the notice of a great many other people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Bill was prepared after consultation with representatives of the friendly societies. That was a rather unfortunate phrase, which has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. It seems to me that the consultation consisted of an interview with a certain number of specially invited gentlemen, followed by an almost complete disregard of any of the proposals they suggested.
4.0 P.M.
I think the Government will be disappointed, to say the least of it, if they expect any widespread satisfaction with the sparse and meagre proposals which their Bill contains. Some no doubt are useful, some no doubt will remedy defects which only have recently been discovered by them, but which we pointed out two years ago. Such, for instance, is the hard case of the people over sixty-five years of age at the time the Act came into operation. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately on his introduction of the Bill, and calling attention to this peculiar hardship, and to the gap between the age of sixty-five and seventy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then took exactly the contrary course to that which he is taking now. The right hon. Gentleman then said it was quite impossible that this could be remedied. To-day he says it can be done and must be done. I congratulate him on his conversion, even if it does come a little late in the day. There is the Clause dealing with the position of the casual labourer; his is a position of extraordinary hardship which cannot be justified under any compulsory scheme
1094
and which would never have found a place in any other. The casual labourer is in the position of a man called upon to pay the full contribution, sometimes unhappily even more than his own full contribution for a full week even although he is unable to secure more than a few hours' work. I remember when the Act was going through this House we made a strong effort to secure that the contribution the casual labourer should pay should bear some proportion to the amount of work he is able to secure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nothing to do with us then, but I am very glad to think he has adopted in this measure the proposals we then made. Apparently the hon. Member for Pontefract denies that suggestion. I should like to know does he deny it?
Mr. BOOTH: I certainly deny that the present Bill is founded in any way upon suggestions made by the Opposition.
Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman speaks with authority on that point, but he cannot deny that the Bill is founded upon our suggestions as long as it carries them out. Then there is the question of the payment of arrears, and I am very glad the Government has realised the anomaly of calling upon a man out of work to pay almost double the amount of contribution he has to pay when in employment, if he is to retain his benefits. I am very glad to notice that suggestions which we made, I think when the Bill was in Committee, in that direction have been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the Bill is an improvement in that direction. I notice there are other proposals in the Bill, among them one of which is full of interest—that is the proposal by which people who are over fifty should obtain in future full benefit, instead of the reduced benefit they now receive in accordance with their age. I can only suppose this proposal is intended to bring the operations of the Bill into closer harmony with the rather picturesque description given of many of its provisions by the right hon. Gentleman before these provisions took final shape. Two years ago we were told it was quite impossible to give additional benefits to people of that age without doing almost irretrievable damage to the basis on which the Bill rested. We were also told it was doubly unfair to the younger members of the community that they should carry so large a portion of the burden of the

1095
older people. Now I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded to do exactly the thing he stated he could not do two years ago. I do not know whether the friendly societies have urged this proposal upon him, but I dare say the right hon. Gentleman, who will follow, will be able to tell us whence the desire springs and how the Government justify it. I should like to know why it is that the Government have changed their mind so abruptly on this point.
There is one other Clause in the Bill to which I should like to refer and that is the proposal to confer for a further twelve months power upon the Insurance Commissioners to vary and alter the provisions of the Act. The House will remember that Section 78, I think, of the Act gives this power for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation. I thought the Act was in operation now. At any rate, the Commissioners, if I recollect aright, have got a further six months to the end of the present year to exercise this power, and I think the House ought to be very jealous of giving to any Government in an Act of Parliament powers to alter provisions and conditions that Parliament has enacted, and we shall want to know very clearly why it is necessary before that Clause of the present Bill is passed and also what steps the Commissioners propose to take. While the Bill contains useful provisions dealing with comparatively minor matters it touches only the fringe of the problem as a whole, and the questions which the Government have left untouched, affecting as they do the whole appointment of the insurance committees, seem to me infinitely more important than these minor matters with which they concern themselves.
I have been reading with intense interest the Report issued by the Commissioners as to the result of the first year's working of the Act and if I deal with only two remaining matters before I sit down it is because the Report of the Commission suggests to me matters of extraordinary gravity which I shall lay before the House. Therefore, I do not touch upon other questions, such as insured women, maternity benefits, questions relating to sickness, intermittent employment, and so forth. I want to deal with the larger point, and, if I can, very seriously to put it before the Government in the hope that they may be able to give us some explanation on the subject. First, I want to refer to some of the provisions for medical benefit. I am
1096
not going to argue this in any controversial spirit, but I do want to bring before the Government the reason for extending the scheme of medical benefit as it was intended to be extended in the Act as it originally stood. There is no doubt the Act originally contemplated a provision of medical attendance, broadly and generally speaking, upon the panel system; there is no doubt about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to tell us periodically that the doctors were coming in to work the Act, and we all hoped and expected that it was so. The whole House expected the provision of medical benefit in the main would be carried out under the panel system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House will remember, said we want something more. The House intended, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended, that people not satisfied with panel doctors and doctors not satisfied with the panel system should each be able to obtain—the doctor employment among patients and the patients a doctor, without having recourse to contracting out. The Bill contained a provision of that kind. The Commissioners themselves before last year contemplated it should be done and they issued a pink ticket to people who wished to do so, not satisfied with the panel doctors, to make their own arrangements. It was only when the controversy with the medical profession reached an acute crisis that the Government placed upon the wording of the Act an interpretation which I believe to be entirely foreign to the meaning of the Act when it left the House of Commons. There is no doubt the Report of the Commission proves, and our own experience proves, that now you have got a panel system, broadly and generally speaking, working throughout the country. It may be working satisfactorily in some places, but why do you not go further and extend the provision of medical benefit in the direction we contemplated two years ago, that is to say, allowing people to make their own arrangements outside the panel system.
It is quite useless for the Government to say that there is not a strong desire on the part of many people to make their own arrangements. It is not a question of doctors trying to break down the Act or of some people in the State entering into an alliance with the doctors to break down the Act. There is a very strong and genuine desire on the part of many persons to go outside the panel system. Take the Scottish Clerks' Society. Their case is

1097
well known to the Government. I say, in my judgment, the Scottish Clerks' Society have a distinct grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government for the treatment they receive. Here you have a body of men who propose, and are willing, to put their hands in their pockets and pay increased contributions in order that they may be able to avoid going to panel doctors, and employing their own. When you find people willing to pay a voluntary levy of that kind to secure doctors of their own choice, why on earth cannot you let them do so. The Government, as I say, has placed a strict and narrow interpretation upon the wording of the Act, and it is in consequence of that strict interpretation that medical benefit has been so closely confined to contract practice as it is. I hope it is not even now too late to put the right interpretation upon the wording of the Act, and put into this Act a provision which will restore freedom to the committees, with the consent of the Commissioners, free from any kind of compulsion on the part of the Government to allow those people to make their own arrangements according to their own free choice. I referred a moment ago to the Report which has just been issued—that astonishing volume—which shows very clearly the gigantic task which the Commissioners have had to carry out. I think no one in the country will for a moment deny the extraordinary ability, the extraordinary courage, the extraordinary determination shown by the Commissioners to overcome every obstacle. No one can deny the courage and ability with which they have fulfilled their task. They have faced their difficulty by issuing memoranda and regulations, but I wish to dwell rather upon the hardships and shortcomings which are found in the Act by the general body of insured people. After reading the Report I am even more surprised at the scanty proposals of the Government's Amending Bill. The Report deals with the great value of the services rendered to the Commissioners by the voluntary organisations of great friendly societies, and they say what a splendid thing it is we had these great voluntary organisations to be able to take advantage of it for the purpose of bringing the compulsory scheme into operation. I should have thought the Government would have been prepared to carry their expression of gratitude further than a mere verbal expression of this kind. They might have made some provision at any rate for the heavy cost of administration
1098
which the present allowance is quite inadequate to meet They might have gone so far as to give to the approved societies that four shillings per member which they were led to expect for administration expenses, instead of the 3s. 5d. which they actually received. There are further passages in this Report which really fill me with alarm. We are told that a number of the societies are overspent. The passage to which I refer is as follows:—
"It has, however, been necessary in a number of eases to remind societies that the National Health Insurance Fund consists only of the aggregate credits of all societies, and that the amount which each may draw is limited to the sum standing to its credit."
That sounds very much like a variation of a familiar theme, but it is something very much more serious in the case of approved societies. The consequences may be disastrous, not only to the societies themselves, but to their members, especially when we remember that the overdraft today is accompanied by an increase, and an unforeseen increase, in the liabilities which lie before the societies in the future. I do not think this question of the further unexpected liabilities is touched upon directly in the Commissioners' Report. This point struck me first when I came to the passage relating to the small number of Post Office contributors. I cannot help being rather amused at the phraseology of the passage which describes the fierce competition between, society and society to get new members under the Act. This is what the Report says:—
"The result of the endeavours of approved societies of very kind to secure for insured persons the full advantages of State insurance, is that leas than four in every hundred insured persons are deposit contributors."
That is most satisfactory. We are all agreed upon that, and there is no division of opinion amongst us, but the position of the deposit contributor is deplorable. Let us examine what this means. Hon. Members will remember that when the Insurance Act was going through the House, we were all very much concerned with the deposit contributor part, and we all looked forward to a large number of deposit contributors who were expected to come into existence under the Act, being principally men of poor health and uninsurable propositions. On this point I could refer to speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) may have foreseen the actual result of the operation of the Act, and he may have foreseen that the fierceness of competition between the societies would practically compel

1099
them to abandon their medical examination. That is what has happened in the great majority of cases, and the necessary consequence is that you have brought into membership of approved societies not the picked and selected lives only, but you have accepted members practically without any examination at all. I think that offers food for very grave reflection, because the whole financial foundation upon which the Insurance Act rests depends upon actuarial calculations derived from the experience of picked lives in nearly every case which had undergone stringent medical examination. Therefore, the figures upon which the calculations have been based are not appropriate to the number of lives which are insured at the present time.
We read a good deal about malingering and its effects in the country under the operation of this Act. We also read a great deal about excessive sickness claims, and something about them being due principally and primarily to malingering. I am forced to believe, after doing all I can to inform myself on this matter, that there is something more than malingering. Although no doubt malingering may play some part, I think the excessive sickness claims arise from the fact that you have admitted into the ranks of the societies a large number of weak lives and bad risks. We read of sickness claims increasing by ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, and even up to seventy per cent. What is going to be the result of that? This is a point which strikes me as being most grave. I said a moment ago that the whole fabric of the present scheme of benefits rests upon actuarial calculations derived from the experience of picked lives under a voluntary system of insurance, where a considerable portion of the members took pride in never coming on to the funds of the society at all. An unexpected development such as that to which I have referred threatens to upset the calculations on which the present system is based, and, in fact, threatens the stability of the whole structure. I leave on one side the errors in estimating the amount which it would cost to the State. I merely mention that the original estimate of £4,000,000 has already increased to £7,000,000. You cannot leave out of account the enormously increased liabilities which have been thrown upon the societies owing to the causes to which I have referred. I may be told that these societies must take care of
1100
themselves, that you will have a valuation, and if it shows that the management is at fault, the societies will have to attend to that matter for themselves, and make good the insufficiency or else the members will have to take decreased benefits. It is not a question of the society, but a question of the members of the society. You do not compel any society to come into the Insurance scheme, but they have a dismal prospect if they do not do so, and you do compel the members to come into the scheme, and, therefore, it is the business of the Government and the House of Commons to see that everything possible shall and must be done to secure those people the full benefit of the contributions which you compel them to pay.
I shall be told by partisans opposite that I am taking a very gloomy view of the situation. They will, no doubt, tell me that if we will only wait two or three years for the valuation we shall find that all our gloomy forebodings will be dispelled. But we cannot afford to wait two or three years. This problem is pressing now, and if I am any judge in the matter, it will continue to press in the future with increasing severity. You cannot afford to wait two or three years, and if you do you will find the state of things so unsatisfactory that your scheme will bring ruin to the friendly societies themselves. I grant that none of us foresaw this result just as none of us could foresee that the prophecies about the released reserves were going to be unfulfilled. There is another passage in the Report which says, under the actuarial calculations of the scheme, it was anticipated that something like £22,000,000 of the societies' funds would be released from liability in consequence of the operation of this financial scheme. The actual experience is that the old friendly societies were so wedded to their own insurance that their members paid contributions under the compulsory scheme in addition, and not in substitution of their payments under this Act. That, again, is a most satisfactory thing from every point of view. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to this House when he introduced the National Insurance Bill, and he told us that one of the reasons which made its speedy introduction vital was that so many societies were threatened with insolvency, and that one of the things to restore solvency to them was the release of a large proportion of their funds. The working of the

1101
Act has not resulted as we all expected, and no one foresaw that so large a proportion of the members would take compulsory insurance in addition to their voluntary insurance. That is a problem which requires the most careful attention on the part of the Government. The Chancellor will say, "Yes, that is all very well, but why do you not attend to this matter?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been at the helm during the eighteen months the National Insurance Act has been in operation, and he must have had his attention drawn through the Commission to these problems upon which I have touched, and I wish he had dealt with some of them, at any rate. Frankly speaking, I am profoundly disappointed that the Government have shown no disposition to grapple firmly and at once with these larger difficulties, which they must face and which they cannot neglect for very much longer.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. Gentleman began with a rather unexpected note of controversy, concerning which I certainly have no intention of following him. He stated that he was surprised that no man had got up from this bench to further explain the Insurance Act Amendment Bill. The Bill was introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule, and was unopposed; it has been widely circulated in the country; a memorandum is in the hands of every Member explaining its provisions, and a further actuarial memorandum is in the hands of every Member explaining its financial details, and from no Member of this House nor in any communication from outside have I heard any kind of objection to any one of its provisions. I have had a communication from the Secretary of the National Conference of Friendly Societies thanking us for certain things we are doing in the Bill, and have had other letters from representatives of approved societies and from individual members concerned with insurance matters also thanking us for certain things we are doing by this Bill. Really, the hon. Gentleman opposite himself never suggested that any Clauses in this Bill were such he would be inclined to oppose. All his criticisms were directed to very serious problems outside this Insurance Act Amendment Bill. Anyhow, any feeling I should have had to indulge in any controversy has been completely disarmed by the very generous tribute which he paid to the National Insurance Commissioners and
1102
their staff, for which I thank him. When I realise, as I have realised, for one and a half years, and, as I think, the House has realised since the Report has been published, the way these gentlemen have worked, and when I remember how they were attacked in the first six or eight months of their existence, I rejoice that the hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, has given them a tribute, which I believe they deserve, for a national work.
Let me deal for a moment, if I may, with the criticisms which the hon. Gentleman made for what was not in the Bill. There were two important points. One was the question of medical benefit, and the other was the question of the approved societies, especially in connection with the problem of excessive sickness. First, as to the extension of medical benefit: I listened to him very carefully, but I could not understand what it was that he desired inserted in the Act, but, of course, any Amendment put down by him will have most serious consideration from us. He seemed, as far as I could understand, to be acting under a sense that the Insurance Commissioners were now preventing insurance committees from doing that which they have a right to do—that is, to arrange for medical benefit for all the insured persons for whom they are responsible under conditions they think satisfactory for all the insured persons. We have got the panel system established. It was passed by this House by an overwhelming majority, and the statutory duty of insurance committees is to ensure that medical attendance is given to all insured persons under the Act. There is only one reason, so far as I know, why exception has been taken to what the hon. Gentleman calls "contracting out." The insurance committee must ensure that all persons, and not simply some selected lives, are treated in the area over which they have control, and in every case where contracting has been demanded the doctors who wish to have patients contracted out have desired to choose selected lives and not to take the average of good, bad, and indifferent, whilst at the same time obtaining the same remuneration, per life, as the doctor who does not contract out. The hon. Gentleman is a perfectly fair-minded man, and he must realise the difficulty of an insurance committee in the matter. If the committee allows, say, five doctors among ten to choose all the good lives and leave the other five to have the indifferent and bad lives, and allows the money to be equally divided between the two, it is

1103
obviously and scandalously unfair on those who have to take all the bad lives. That is the sole reason, as far as I understand, why insurance committees are limiting the conditions of contracting out.
Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman does not grasp my point at all. I am not looking at the thing from the doctor's point of view, but from the point of view of the insured person. If an insured person says, "I want that doctor over there," then I say the Act gives him the right to have that doctor, and you have no business to prevent him having him.
Mr. MASTERMAN: If insured person A by saying, "I want that doctor over there," prevents insured person B from getting any doctor—that is what it means—then he has no such right. That alone is the problem before the insurance committees. May I point out one other thing in connection with this matter. The British Medical Association have made a considerable agitation for the exercise of Section 15 (3)—that is what we call contracting out—but they are very doubtful now whether they would not get less rather than more advantage out of it. If contracting out is to be done, it cannot be limited to doctors who want to be on the panel. There are many systems, especially in South Wales and elsewhere, whereby the miners arrange for doctors who take the man, his wife and children for a certain fee, and there is a very great demand for an extension of that system It is thoroughly welcome to the miners, and to insured persons, but the free doctors who are anxious to promote contracting out where this system does not exist, are anxious to stop contracting out where it does exist. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the pages of the British Medical Journal for the last few weeks, he will see that they are in a hopeless dilemma as to what they want, whether contracting out or not. Surely, the sensible thing to do is this: Let every doctor come on to the panel, and let doctors come on to the panel, if they like, for limited attendance, say, to twenty persons, so long as they do not gather their cloaks around them and say, "we will have nothing to do with this thing," and so long as the doctors are not divided into two classes, panel and non-panel. I know that every insurance committee has been anxious to welcome doctors on to the panel even for a limited number of eases in order
1104
that the medical profession now so divided should be joined up again to work the Act.
I would strongly submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite that their attitude has a very considerable influence in connection with this particular point, and that they should endeavour with us to try and get the free choice of doctor, for which they voted, established as the universal system, with every doctor on the panel, and no doctors fighting the panel system in this country. Surely that, without any legislation at all, could be done if they would join their influence with ours in endeavouring to persuade the doctors. In any case, I know of no Amendment to the Act which would meet the point. More and more doctors are coming on to the panel, and I think that only a little effort is required to make for a lasting peace, but it ought to be an effort made by both sides. Let me come to a point which the hon. Gentleman said was of considerable interest and seriousness. It is not a point we could have met by legislation in this Bill. We have heard a good deal outside in recent newspaper correspondence of the point which the hon. Gentleman put with great force and gravity. It is the question whether excessive sickness claims are going to so develop as to break down the financial arrangements of the Act. It is grotesque to imagine that in six months working of an Act of this sort any reliable statistics can be obtained. The Act has brought in perhaps five million persons who were insured before, and perhaps seven million persons who had never really been insured at all. It has been working six months, and at the end of those six months we hear certain statements referring especially to certain districts and to certain approved societies that the sickness benefit of their own members—not the new members who have come in—has gone up in comparison with last year.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Report, he will find some rather remarkable figures in connection with this question. We asked for special figures on the first quarter from seven or eight societies as to their sickness experience, and we found that so far from their being any balance against the societies for excessive sickness, the sickness experience had not come up to the amount allowed for in the actuarial calculations. There were some of the largest societies. I do not want to mention their names, because I do not wish to seem to give a preference to some

1105
over others. They include societies of all types, trade unions, industrial societies, and large friendly societies. With no allowance for it being the worst three months in the year, from January to April, the actuarial allowance was £470,000, and, with allowance for the season, it was £567,000. That was the allowance in the actuarial calculations, and the actual money paid out was £400,000. That was not only very much less than, the allowance made for the season between January and April, but very much less than the allowance made for even a normal season. I think that fact ought to be before the House before they accuse us of being indifferent to rather vague statements of excessive sickness. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, it would be very foolish on our part, and very much against our duty, if we did not consider very seriously whether, and in what degree if at all, excessive sickness did exist, and how far that was genuine sickness, and how far it might be due to what is ordinarily called malingering.
On that point, I have just three considerations to represent to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I think that it has been established—I do not quite know the reason why it is so—that there has been an excessive sickness above the normal during the past few months, and especially in the second quarter. The result has been that in some cases the line of sickness, which generally rapidly drops from April until about October, has not boon dropping as was expected. Secondly, there is undoubtedly, as attested by evidence, a number of persons drawing sick pay who have no right under the Act to do so. Curiously enough that specially refers to Lancashire. A very large number of complaints have been received from societies with branches in Lancashire, and it must have some connection with the fact that Lancashire has never had experience of the contract system. Lancashire doctors have been working under a different system to that which obtains in the rest of the country. I can only hope, so far as the sickness excess depends on doctors carelessly giving certificates, or in some cases giving them deliberately because they are opposed to the Act, that the great influence of the medical profession, as a whole, will be exercised to prevent that kind of thing going on, for if there is one thing more than another which would bring the whole medical profession into disrepute it would be the find
1106
ing out by the leaders of friendly societies, in testing these certificates, that they were given unfairly.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: Have you any ground for saying that?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not speak without grounds.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: Bring them forward.
Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member will consult the leaders of some friendly societies with whom I have been in consultation, I think he will find he would have grounds for saying this and even more. If he will consult the committee the doctors, themselves have set up in Manchester, a committee of doctors and insured persons, equally represented, to prevent this sort of thing going on, I shall be very glad to hear what they say. I do not think they will challenge me across the floor of this; House.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman provide for that in the Bill? Why not introduce some provision to put a stop to it?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Before I finish I may perhaps announce something which will have the effect of stopping it. But I would much rather see it stopped by general agreement among fair-minded men. The third point raised by the hon. Member opposite was with reference to Clause 72. In that Clause we gave what everyone in this House wanted us to give, a free choice to every member of a friendly society either to insure with the State, in addition to his friendly society, or to combine the State insurance and the friendly society insurance, paying less but receiving the combined benefits. If the friendly societies had accepted that second suggestion and had interwoven their system, then every statement which we made at the time the Bill was being passed would have been realised.
Mr. HUNT: Ninepence for 4d.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it is now about 11d. for 4d. The £13,000,000 of reserve would have been set free, additional benefits would have been given, and these enormous deficits which exist at the present time in the friendly societies might have been swept away altogether. We accepted the principle of self-government, but the result has been harmful in this direction from two points of view. It has

1107
been harmful because they have not cleared these deficits and because they are now in the position that a very large number of their members can get more when they are ill than when they are well. Whatever we may say about human nature, everyone knows that that means continual pressure on the sick fund. It also means that a large number of people in the present condition of good trade are paying more than they will be able to afford to pay, when bad trade comes along, in the way of combined contributions—the friendly society contribution and the State contribution. All I can say here is I do not think that any Clause in the Bill could meet this difficulty. But I do think, and I am trying to state it as publicly as possible, that the friendly societies themselves should take this matter into consideration. They ought to revise their schemes under Clause 73; they ought to be content with less contribution from their members, instead of a double benefit, and then they would not only be able to wipe out their deficit, but they ought to be in a position to provide additional benefits for their members.
As to the whole question, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, it is worthy serious consideration. As he fairly says, these considerations have arisen in the operation of the Bill, and no man could have foreseen them. It is because such considerations must arise from time to time that Amending Bills must be introduced, even on the happy anniversary of the 15th July. I think we had better appoint a Committee to go into this subject—a Committee of representatives of approved societies, representatives of the doctors, and perhaps one or two other members. Let them fruitfully spend their time in the coming autumn and winter in examining exactly into these charges—charges of malingering, and charges against the doctors. It is very desirable, if they are without foundations, such charges should be got rid of. The Committee might also inquire relative to the case of the man who is only earning 15s. per week but is insured for 20s. a week, and gets that increase in sick pay. I think also the alleged increase of benefit in the case of women might be inquired into. If the Committee went into the whole subject, although I do not think it would be possible to embody much on the result of their inquiry in legislation, at any rate their Report would enable us to
1108
put right anything which may be wrong in these particular matters, and the remedy could be applied in a very short time. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was disappointed, but he seemed to think it was a subject for criticism that so many bad lives had gone into the friendly societies, instead of being deposit contributors.
Mr. FORSTER: I merely stated the fact. From the point of view of the individual no doubt it was satisfactory, but it was of doubtful utility to the society.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not so sure about that. I know the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Worthington-Evans) propounded during the Debates on the Bill a very interesting scheme with a view of producing this very result—of trying to get an equal distribution of bad lives between the different friendly societies—an equal liability by friendly societies for bad lives.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should not be in order in discussing that point in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, but it appears to me he has not the slightest recollection in the world of what the actual scheme was. It had nothing whatever to do with distributing deposit contributors over the friendly societies.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I know it was somewhat difficult to understand, but fundamentally it was that the liability for bad lives should be distributed among all the insurance societies, and that is exactly what has happened. I have had an analysis drawn out which it may be interesting to have published as a Parliamentary Paper. We have taken two sample districts of deposit contributors, and the results do not in the least degree resemble the prophesies so freely made from the other side during those Debates. It was suggested, I believe, that there would be 3,000,000 of these deposit contributors, and I wish to explain how different things are in the matter of this class from what they were expected to be. There were, we were told, 3,000,000 bad lives excluded from the ordinary advantages of insurance. These 3,000,000 persons had a very keen desire to be insured, and their position formed the subject of controversy on every insurance platform. That is a matter of fact. But I have analysed them in two characteristic towns, and I find the overwhelming majority of them are lives which in every respect are as good as the lives of the ordinary friendly societies' member, and

1109
that the last thing that makes a man become a deposit contributor is the fact that he is ill or is a bad life. Large numbers of them were ignorant of the Act altogether. Some have become deposit contributors for political reasons.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Were they followers of the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Many of them became deposit contributors because they thought their money was safer in the Post Office than in a friendly society. Some became deposit contributors because they did not want to have anything to do with friendly societies. The result of our inspectors going around among the deposit contributors has been that more than half of them have become members of approved societies, and were freely taken by those societies. Two of the largest insurance societies in the country—a friendly society and an industrial society—have expressed their desire to take the deposit contributors over en bloc and think they can make a profit out of them. What, then, becomes of the 3,000,000 living in degradation and despair, as they were pictured from time to time?
5.0 P.M
The hon. Gentleman opposite challenged us with not sanctioning an increase of 7d. per member for administration expenses under the Act. Surely, even if that expense had to be sanctioned, it is far too early in the history of the Bill for us to declare that the money is necessary ! The work of organisation, the vast work of administration of one of the most amazing constructions the world has ever seen has been thrown on the friendly societies from the beginning, and the idea that these administrative expenses will continue, and that we shall therefore have to grant £480,000 annually from the National Exchequer does not hold good, because, I think the vast bulk of the difficulty has been overcome. Therefore this House should look seriously at any such proposal before it agrees to it. The very purpose of this Act has been to make administration easy. Some Clauses are only justified in order that the administration may be easy, and they were proposed by the friendly societies themselves. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can make any suggestion which would render the administration easier and consequently cheaper, I can assure them we shall be only too glad to accept them so far as we possibly can. But for us to go out of our way and vote
1110
a sum approaching half a million a year permanently towards administration, either out of the Insurance Fund or out of State funds, after an experience of only six months working of the Act, is surely a suggestion no Government can entertain. I would like to say one word as to the actual Amendment that has been made. The hon. Members opposite may say, if they please, that we have accepted their formulae. Now I do not care who gets the credit of any Amendment, so long as the Act benefits. The hon. Gentleman knows, as well as we do, that whilst the Act was under review, every conceivable extension was being thrust upon us from the other side without any regard to money at all, and if my right hon. Friend resisted these continual attempts, which would have resulted in bringing down the benefits further and further, surely he should now receive some credit, if after looking at the administration of the Act for six months he can see his way to giving certain persons some extra benefits, which he could not undertake to give at that time. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly brought up the point which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He was almost the only hon. Gentleman opposite who, when the Act was being passed, did anything to restrain the continual demand for millions and millions to be added to the national insurance expenses, therefore it is with all the greater delight that we realise we are able in this matter to fulfil his desire, opposing as he did most of those tremendous demands, to make the lot of the old people under this Act more comfortable than it was before. Take one of the most important questions in this Bill, the giving to uninsured friendly society members who are over sixty-five years of age or disabled—there are, I think, some 220,000 of them—2s. 6d. a year towards medical benefit. It will enable them to get medical benefit under Section 15, Sub-section (1) (e) of the original Act. That arises out of something that happened subsequently to the passing of the Act, and it arises logically from the giving of the extra 2s. 6d. to the insured. I could never see, and I told the House so again and again in answer to questions, why the fact that the doctors received very much more for their insured patients, should make them drop their uninsured patients. I saw no logical meaning in it. After trying for many months to induce them to accept that

1111
point of view we have been unable to do so. We have taken the power of collective bargaining away from the friendly societies, so that they cannot introduce it. Surely the whole House must agree in regard to these stragglers in the battle between the two conflicting forces, that the Government of the country cannot hold them in that position, but must ensure for them also the medical benefit for which they have subscribed ten, twenty, or forty years. For that, I am glad to say, we have received the thanks of the friendly societies. Take another point, the question of casual labour. It is not correct for the hon. Gentleman to say that the casual labour Clause, as we bring it up, was in any way proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. HUNT: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I have moved an Amendment myself for the very purpose aimed at by Clause 7.
Mr. MASTERMAN: With all respect to the hon. Member, he does not quite understand what is in the Clause. Clause 7 is not only required to allow people to pay by the day instead of by the week, as the hon. Gentleman thinks. That is what was discussed. Clause 7 allows that under certain conditions, as, for instance, in the ease of an ordinary gardener working for different people on six days of the week, with probably a daily card stamped for each of the people for whom he is regularly working. But Clause 7 goes far beyond that; it tries to introduce into districts which have hitherto refused to introduce them some of the schemes for dealing with casual labour which were outlined in Part I. of the Report—schemes which will ensure that the casual labourer shall not pay more than his own share, and shall never be under the temptation to pay his employer's share; schemes which ensure that by arrangements with good employers the full fruits of insurance shall be paid. These schemes will be submitted by way of Special Order. They may be challenged, and, if challenged, will be submitted to some impartial person, and, if he approves of it, it will come into law. It is to provide such schemes as that for the London Docks that Clause 7 is introduced as a result of the experience of schemes which have already been adopted at Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester, and other places by voluntary effort between employers and employed. I can only
1112
express again my hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will do their best to help us to improve this Bill. Again and again in my position, especially in connection with administration, I have appealed to them to help us in the work of administration, just as my right hon. Friend appealed to them before in regard to the work of legislation. This great, gigantic scheme of social amelioration ought to be above party politics. Our sole desire for two years has been to keep it above party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !" and "What about by-elections?"] I do not want to say anything about by-elections now, but to appeal to Members of this House, who will be in Committee on the Bill next week. I say that we will do our best to meet any proposals they may make to improve the Bill, apart from party. I want them to help us by making proposals to improve it. If that is done, I believe we may pass a Bill which will not only give great relief and satisfaction to millions of insured persons at present, but also a Bill which will be found better than the particular items which the Commissioners and the Government were able to introduce. I am certain if the hon. Gentleman will only maintain the very friendly spirit of the criticisms he made in the latter part of his speech, this House may be well satisfied with an Amending Insurance Bill this Session.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Surely this is a most extraordinary Second Reading Debate upon an Amending Bill ! The right hon. Gentleman, in the last ten minutes of his speech, said he would say one or two words about the contents of the Amending Bill. He complained of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) when he pointed out that no one from the Government Bench had considered it worth while to get up to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He pointed out that there had been an actuary's report, and that there had been a memorandum issued in regard to the Bill. Official documents are issued very often, but I have never heard that on the Second Reading of a Bill they rendered unnecessary an explanation of what the Bill really was. I propose, in the first instance, to confine my attention to the Amendments proposed in the Bill, and then, incidentally, to refer to some of the remarks the right hon. Gentleman has made in the course of his somewhat discursive speech. With regard to the Amending Bill itself, I would ask the

1113
House to pay special attention to Clause 1, which is a really extraordinary Clause. It alters the whole financial basis of the National Insurance Act, and, in effect, repeals Section 3 of the Act, which is the basis of the contributory scheme. It throws away all the safeguards upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself, namely, that the State only contributed two-ninths of the benefits, while the insured persons and their employers contributed seven-ninths. This Clause provides that by an Estimate followed by the Appropriation Bill this House may, at any future time, without any further dealing with the Insurance Act itself, vote any sums of money it chooses towards national insurance, and that then and thereafter the seven-ninths and the two-ninths shall only apply to the balance. It would be possible for the Government, in making a final bid for lost popularity, to make this scheme entirely non-contributory without ever coming to the House again, simply by means of a Supplementary Estimate and an Appropriation Bill. In considering this Amending Bill we ought to bear in mind what the cost of the various Amendments will be, and then consider whether that money can be used in any better manner, in any of the directions suggested by my hon. Friend or by accepting some of the Amendments which are proposed by the representatives of the approved societies.
Besides the £1,850,000 that is already the subject of the Supplementary Estimate which is legalised by this Bill, the gross cost of the Amendments in this Bill is £1,010,000, from which must be deducted savings which are due to some benefits under this Bill being substituted for benefits which were given under the original Act. Those savings amount to £185,000 a year, which leaves a net cost of £825,000 a year. Of that sum £227,000 is provided by the taxpayers, £100,000 is taken from the Sinking Fund, and £498,000 is derived from an increase in the reserve values and the consequent postponement of their redemption. Some sums at present unknown—the Secretary to the Treasury has not told the House to-day, and he refused to tell me in answer to questions the other day, what they were— are coming out of the approved societies themselves.
Mr. MASTERMAN: No
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." At
1114
least he is consistent in his denial, but I still venture to assert that some sums do come out of the funds of the approved societies, for instance, the margin which they at present enjoy in connection with the three weeks' average contributions, and also the fifty contributions which are taken away by Clause 6. The Amendments in this Bill are going to cost £825,000, found in one way or another, besides what may come from the approved societies. What the House has to consider is shortly this: That we have £825,000 to deal with, and are the Government dealing with that money in the best way in the interests of national insurance? For that purpose I propose to consider very briefly what the Amendments are. I must say that upon some of them I congratulate the Government. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Government on anything they do, more especially in connection with national insurance.
The Secretary to the Treasury is not quite fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt), because undoubtedly he is the author, whatever the Government may think, of the casual labour Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If any hon. Member wishes to look the matter up he will find that on the 10th July, 1911, the germ of this proposal was contained in an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The Government then refused it as imposible. We can also claim, equally truly, that the provisions with regard to exempted persons were suggested from this side of the House. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me a definite undertaking across the floor of the House just two years ago that he would carry to the credit of the exempted persons the employers' contributions and see that they got a direct benefit out of those contributions. He did not carry out his undertaking, for the right hon. Gentleman in April of this year, was obliged to inform me that although there were over 100,000 of these exempted persons nothing had been done and no scheme had been prepared to bring to their credit the benefit of the contributions made by the employers. Now this Bill proposes to do it. It is better late than never and I am glad that it is now proposed, although I observe that the Bill only proposes to give to these exempted persons benefits which will cost 5s. 9d. a year, whereas the Blue Book issued by the Insurance

1115
Commissioners shows the average contribution made by exempted persons is 11s. 4d. a year.
Mr. BOOTH: Not made by, but paid on their behalf.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I should like to know what is proposed to be done with the 5s. 7d. balance?
Mr. MASTERMAN: Where does the hon. Gentleman get the figure of 5s. 7d.?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the Act, I am sure. Five-and-ninepence is the cost of medical benefit and sanatorium benefit apportionable to the insured person—seven-ninths of the benefit. The half-crown is an additional half-crown which the insured person never pays—which has never been deducted from his contribution. It always was an additional half-crown. I quite understand he is going to get the Government half-crown. It is not going to be deducted from the money placed to his credit by the employer. It is coming out of the State fund. The balance of five-and-sevenpence is the net balance of the employer's money, and he is entitled to some benefit for that five-and-seven-pence. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind. Then, with regard to medical benefit for aged and infirm persons, I am delighted that at last justice is to be done to the old members of friendly societies, who are now going to have their medical benefit restored to them. With regard to the Amendment in connection with arrears, there is really a very curious history attached to it, and, as the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to allow that any of these Amendments came from this side of the House, it might be worth while the House considering what its history is. It was put down by a large number of Members, and it was actually moved by one of the hon. Members for Northampton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
"It is a proposal which is utterly impracticable unless you are going to give this money to men whether they deserve it or not. As I have said several times it is very important that the Bill should not be an encouragement to thriftlessness."
I wonder what the reason is of the change. If that objection was valid then, the same objection applies now.
But the chief Amendment which is proposed by this Bill is the Amendment to give full benefit to all those who enter
1116
insurance for the first time over fifty. That Amendment in itself is going to cost £658,000 a year, and while no one is going to object to the older men in insurance having greater benefit if there is money to spare, I think the House ought to be very careful before it is generous at other people's expense. There is no question that the greater part of this benefit is to be paid for out of the funds which have been specially allocated to the younger members of societies. The State pays out of this £658,000, £160,000 a year, which is a gradually diminishing sum, and from the Sinking Fund or by the creation of additional reserve values, nearly £500,000 is paid out of money which was specially intended for extra benefits to the younger men in the scheme. We ought to have had some considerable justification from the Government when they introduced this proposal, and far from saying a single word in its support, the Financial Secretary has taken great care to leave this Amendment entirely out of touch in the few remarks he made on the actual provisions of the Bill. It is a departure from all friendly society methods. Of course the whole Bill is, to some extent; but never in the past has a friendly society given benefits of the same amount to men of all ages for the same contribution. They have always varied the contribution in respect of those who join much later in life or varied the benefits which might be given for that contribution. But an enormous bonus is being given by this provision, largely at the expense of the other members of friendly societies. I do not know where the Government got this suggestion for an Amendment from. I am quite sure none of the approved societies asked for it; none of the organisations of the approved societies asked for it, and so far as I know, none of the organisations representing insured persons asked for it.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Do you oppose it?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not said I oppose it. I have not the slightest desire to stand in any old man's way. You ought to consider, if you have the money to spare, whether you are using it in the best way, and certainly you ought not to rob the younger men who have already contributed so much to those who are older in the scheme. There has been no organised demand, certainly by any of the insured people for this particular benefit. Of course, I can conceive that the Government have found this insurance

1117
scheme not so popular as they imagined it was going to be, and they have looked round to see who are in charge of the lodges and courts throughout the country, and they have found that, generally speaking, men rather more than fifty years of age were in positions of trust and influence in these lodges and courts, and they have deliberately made a bid for popularity by giving them an additiontl benefit at the expense of the younger people in the scheme. What we have to consider is whether this money is being used in the best way. My hon. Friend (Mr. H. W. Forster) suggested that the Government should take into account one Amendment which is pressed upon them by all the members of the approved societies and all the organisations of the approved societies, namely, that the extra fourpence should be allowed for administration. I was very surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that was going to cost something like £500,000 a year.
Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman opposite said 3s. 5d. to 4s.—that is £700,000 a year.
Mr. FORSTER: What I said with regard to the allowance for administration was that they were led to expect they would receive 4s., but they actually received only 3s. 5d.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:My hon. Friend is, I think, perfectly right. The original idea was that there was to be an administration allowance of 4s. a year per person. That was reduced to 3s. 8d. per year per person, and from that 3s. 8d. threepence has been taken away for the purpose of the expenses of the insurance committees, and that has now become a net 3s 5d. The desire is that the original 3s. 8d. should be turned back again into 4s.—that is, that fourpence should be added to the administration expenses, and that is estimated to cost about £175,000 a year. I give the figure of £175,000 a year on the authority of the actuary who has been advising the Friendly Societies Council or one of the bodies representing the approved societies. That is an Amendment which, I believe, is going to be essential whether you do it now or whether you wait until you are further driven to it; but you cannot expect the administration of this Act to be well carried on unless you can have well-paid local secretaries to devote, if not their whole time, the great bulk of their time to the work of the lodges and the courts.
1118
Already the work thrown upon them is double or treble what it was in the past, and unless you can make it worth their while devoting themselves to the work, you will find that the expense in sickness alone will much exceed the fourpences which they would otherwise be expending on the improved administration. There are other Amendments which have been urged upon the Government, and which are competitors in this large sum of £800,000 which it is now proposed to spend. There is the payment of the first three days of sickness; there is the Amendment to give to the young men under twenty-one, who have no dependants, full benefits on the ground that they are paying already a contribution which is in excess of the actual benefits which they now get. But if the Government had wished to remove some of the hardships of the compulsory scheme, if they had wished to make good the promise which they have made of minimum benefits, they would have used the fund to strengthen the weak cases.
I propose to deal with three weak places, and incidentally with some of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman favoured me with. Let me take as an example of one of the weak places the position of the outworkers. Married women were first in the Bill, then they were out of the Bill owing to the Somerset by-election, and then they came back again into the Bill by order of the Commission. There were two Committees appointed by the Commissioners to report on the position of the outworkers and then there have been three different methods applied in collecting their contributions. The first method was the ordinary weekly system whereby the outworker, if she was a woman, had to-pay, and have paid for her, sixpence a week even if she was earning only two shillings or three shillings, and then there was the second system which was called the unit and half-unit system with a time limit, which was some modification and improvement of the original method. Now there is the present method, which is undoubtedly a better method, and which provides that in each of the trades where-outworkers are employed, a unit of wage shall be fixed, and that that wage, whenever earned, shall count as if it carried' one week's contribution, and the time limit is removed. The Blue Book refers at considerable length to the outworker's position, and it says that the new system is almost universally welcomed and it is; working satisfactorily. It seems to suggest

1119
that all difficulties have been got over in connection with the outworkers. I wonder to whom it is satisfactory, and how the Government can possibly justify, in view of some facts which I propose to give, keeping these people in compulsory insurance. I have had got out for me the actual results of the contribution of outworkers during the first thirty-nine weeks the Act has been in operation, and translating these contributions into the existing unit system, this will be the result. This is a factory which has 345 female outworkers, of whom 186, or roughly three-fifths of the whole, have completed nineteen units and are twenty units in arrear, "which means that although they have had nineteen times sixpence taken from their wages—partly paid in wages by employers and partly by themselves— they are twenty units in arrear, and they never can, under the Bill, get any benefit whatever from the contribution which has been forced from them. This year the position is closed, owing to the Clause which provides that arrears shall not count during the first year, but when this is in full operation, and if this position is repeated, three-fifths of these people will be fined every week, and can never get any benefit whatever from their contributions. As regards another fifth, they have made thirty complete units, and are nine units in arrear, and if that same progression is carried out the whole year, they will be over twelve weeks in arrear at the end of the year, and they will be suspended from benefit, though they may have had some chance of medical benefit. There are one-fifth of the women employed in that factory who would be in full benefit. I ask the Government to consider what right they have got to make people in that position go on contributing to insurance. What right have they got to spend £600,000 on other benefits, if they have that money available, until they make good the position of some of the poorest and weakest of those in the insurance? It is all very well to give an age increase to men over fifty—men with votes and influence—but ought they not to consider the women who are without votes and influence, and without money, from whom they are taking contributions, knowing well that they have nothing whatever to hope for in return?
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there has been an analysis showing who the deposit contributors are. He seemed to forget the Chancellor of the
1120
Exchequer's description when the Bill was passing through this House. Can he remember his chief calling them "houses on fire," and an "uninsurable proposition?" These were the expressions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used when trying to excuse himself from giving the deposit contributors proper insurance. He said, "How can you insure a house on fire?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer charges us with being wrong in regard to the deposit contributors, but it was himself who described these people as "uninsurable," and now they turn out not to be uninsurable. How can the Financial Secretary expect us, after having that description from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to think that the approved societies would take in those "uninsured houses on fire"? I myself very much doubt whether they have been wise in doing that. I believe a good deal of the excess of sickness is due to the inclusion in their midst of a large number of people who were not really insurable, and who ought to have been segregated. The right hon. Gentleman made an absolute travesty of an Amendment which I proposed during the time the Bill was in Committee, but I will not deal with that now. There is not more time available than is required to deal with the Amending Bill actually before the House, and I will not be tempted to stray off into that matter. The Irish Report gives us a great deal of frank statement in regard to the deposit contributors in that country. One-third of the cards cannot be identified, and, if they have stamps on them, you are making that possible. When they come to the central office, they cannot be identified, and consequently no benefit can be given. Even in the second quarter, after having had a quarter's experience of the Insurance Act, about one-third cannot be traced, because they have no addresses and no insurance books in connection with them.
In England already some 10 per cent, of the deposit contributors, failing to have 7s. to their credit at the beginning of the year, have been suspended from benefit. One of the latest presents from the Insurance Commissioners is a little leaflet distributed among insurance committees telling them what is to happen to deposit contributors out of benefit for a whole year, although contributions are to be exacted from them. Having dealt with two of the weak spots, there is still a weaker spot in this Act, namely, the excess of sickness claims. The right hon. Gentleman, in his

1121
speech, told us that he had some information which seemed to show that there had been no excess of sickness in the first quarter, and that the actual claims did not amount to as many as had been expected. I do not find that in the Blue Book. I think the right hon. Gentleman said it was contained in the Blue Book. There are no figures, so far as I know, to justify the statement.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I said the figures had been compared with the actuarial estimate.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The only figure I can find is £400,000 paid out in benefit. There is no actuarial estimate, and no information to show the country whether sickness claims were in excess of or lower than the number expected. That is a notable omission. This Blue Book was to tell us how the administration had been going on up to date. All over the country there are rumours, and in every newspaper there are statements, that there have been extra claims made on the friendly societies, and although this Blue Book was only published a week or two ago, there is not a word of information to enable the public to judge whether the claims are excessive or not. The right hon. Gentleman said that the first quarter did not show the proportion of claims expected. Has he found out how many of these people in the first quarter were or were not qualified for benefit? If they have paid twenty-six weeks' contributions right through the first two quarters, they would have been qualified for benefit during the whole of the third quarter. Has he tested that in any way? If not, the statement he has made is absolutely valueless as evidence of the actual claims with expectation. The expectation is on the basis of the number of people referred to being entitled to benefit during the whole quarter. Unless he has found out whether they are entitled to benefit by making the first twenty-six weeks' contributions, he cannot make any useful comparison at all, and I should very much doubt the value of his statement. In the second quarter, where the claims ought to be lower, he himself admits that they were higher than the expectation. Is that not rather because the full number of people were qualified for claims and were coming upon the fund? I quite agree that a period of six months is too short to lay down for any actuarial calculations, but it is a period which you can compare with a similar period in the
1122
year before. Although it is short, it is the only period we have which enables us to make any comparison. I dare say hon. Members saw the very interesting reports in the "Times" of 12th and 14th July. I am not going to read them, but practically they are from all parts of the country, and especially the Midlands and the North. These reports have been got from officials of various approved societies, and I think that without exception the officials report that the claims have been hugely in excess of expectation from the actuarial point of view.
Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that they were selected by the newspapers or the societies?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not make any suggestion whatever, except that the reports are apparently genuine. That they are genuine I feel satisfied. If the hon. Gentleman has read them, he will see that they are genuine, and if he has not read them, I would advise him to do so.
Mr. BOOTH: I have read them.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: These newspaper reports are, of course, general reports, and I have endeavoured to get something more than general reports. It is not very easy for private Members to get definite information, but I think I have got from some secretaries of lodges figures which do give an actual comparison of what has happened during the first six months. I will give one instance. In a lodge in Essex, taking State and voluntary benefits together, the number of days sickness has increased from 6.4 in 1911, and 6.8 in 1912, to 11.5 in 1913. There has been a 40 per cent, increase in the number of days sickness per member insured.
Dr. ADDISON: What is the name of the society?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member will see that it would be quite wrong to give names of individual societies. If they were good societies, or if they had good experience, you would be advertising some particular societies if you gave the names. On the other hand, by giving the name of a society, you might be doing harm. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself refused to do it I will give the hon. Member the names privately if he wishes. In another South country lodge I find there has been the same experience, though not quite so bad. It shows a 25 per cent, increase in sick

1123
benefit. I have three or four more here in North Wales. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if present, might have liked to hear what was happening there. These are on the voluntary side only, and they are not State benefit. The figures show the effect of the Act on the voluntary side. In 1912 the average was 3.5 and in 1913 it was 4.8, showing an increase of 27 per cent. Another society in Carnarvon shows an increase of 33 per cent., and still another an increase of 40 per cent. In Anglesey one has an increase of 33 per cent, and another of 50 per cent. In Merioneth shire, I have got one with a 12 per cent, increase. In view of these figures, I venture to think that no one who really wished to use whatever money was available in the best way for national insurance would do otherwise than use it for the purpose of strengthening the position of the societies. I do not think there can be any doubt, in view even of these short comparisons, that the financial position does require strengthening, for the consequences, if a large number of lodges and approved societies failed, are too horrible to contemplate. They have been the means of thrift in the past—practically the only means of thrift known. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has come along and said, "The State is going to help you and give you 9d. for 4d. This is not a gamble. It is an investment. You pay your 4d. and you get your 9d." It is largely because of this that the whole spirit of the movement has changed. Having paid their 4d. insured persons want to get their 9d., and they take the earliest possible opportunity of getting it. A large amount of the feeling is difficult to explain, except on that footing. A large number of people felt pride formerly in keeping off the lodge funds, but that feeling now seems to be disappearing under the influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to this side to help him to get rid of party politics. Whenever he is in a difficulty he does that. At other times he does not spare his political opponents, whether on the platform or in this House, nor does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is constantly making platform appeals. May I remind the House of one. Only a year ago, just about the "Joy-day," he was then saying that it was the Tories who were spreading lies about the Act, and there was nothing the matter with it, and it was all coming through. In view of the
1124
sickness experience will hon. Gentlemen opposite say there is nothing the matter with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Just a few. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) cheered just now when I mentioned the Chancellor's statement that it was the Tories who were telling lies about the Act. May I remind him of the actual quotation. Speaking on the 25th May, 1912, the Chancellor said:—
"On the Stock Exchange there were people who were called bears, whose function was to run down a security and circulate falsehoods about it, and then try to break it on the market. Their only chance of making money was to sell out before they were found out. He would tell them what the political bears, the Tory bears, had been doing with the Insurance Act. They had circulated falsehoods, and for the moment they had created a panic in the market; but the security was a good one and the public were beginning to find out that there was a value in it. The price was going up, and the Tories, unless he was mistaken, would have to pay a ruinous contango on the transaction."
The Chancellor was wrong then, and he is wrong now. Three days before he made that speech he had made an investment, and he lost money by it, and another loss besides. He is just as wrong now, and unless he will deal with this situation at once there will also be a loss, a loss not only of money, but a loss of the nation's credit.
Mr. HODGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is always interesting on the question of national insurance. With regard to this Amending Bill we desired that it should have gone much further, but we realise that at this time of the year time will not permit the carrying out of all the things which we would like to see done With reference to the experience of the hon. Member for Colchester as to sickness, as the secretary of an approved society having 20,000 members who are connected with the steel and tin-plate and iron trades, trades which are supposed to have more than the average of sickness, our experience under the Act has been that the sickness is less than the actuarial expectations. Another fact: averages are fallacious unless you have got the average age of the members. In the society with which I am connected we have been careful to have the ages of the members taken for each quarter, and the average of sickness which we had under the Act not only for the first, but for the second quarter, proved to be considerably less than the actuarial calculations. The only thing that I regret to say is that so far as excess is concerned, it is in the payment of maternity benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why regret?"] You will have

1125
to ask somebody else. I cannot give any reasons for it. Probably if the inquiry which has been promised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary, were extended in its scope, it might supply the answer which hon. Gentlemen opposite are evidently so anxious to have. When the National Insurance Bill first came before the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited all sections of the House to meet him and discuss its various provisions and suggest Amendments. We on these beaches accepted the invitation, and while we were successful in getting him to accept some of the proposals which we put before him, there were many which he refused to accept. The bulk of these are now contained in this measure. Our hope was that the present Bill would have been more extensive in its character, but the speech which we have heard from the Front Bench gives me hope that when the Bill goes upstairs some of our proposals for an extension of the Act and removing some of the anomalies will be accepted.
I would like to accept what one might describe as the challenge of the Financial Secretary with respect to reducing the cost of administration. I do not find anything in the Bill in reference to the excessive cost that is imposed upon the various approved societies as a result of the four separate Commissions. If something was done to simplify matters a great deal of work and money would be saved the various approved societies. If we take as an example the issue of money by the Commissioners for the payment of benefits to approved societies, the English Commissioners have one method the Scottish Commissioners have another, and the Welsh Commissioners yet another. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises what it is for the secretaries and other officials of approved societies to have to read so many sets of regulations, when one regulation would be sufficient for such a simple purpose as that. My hope is that the right hon. Gentleman upstairs may do something by way of Amendment to get over a difficulty of this kind, or, if he has the power and influence with the Commissioners, that he may get them to set up in their arrangements some sort of clearing house, where the methods of the three Commissions would be of the same character, so that we should only be compelled to read one circular and file one, instead of having to read and file four. Then, if you take Scotland as
1126
another example, one would have thought that their methods in particular would have been up to date—at any rate, if one was to believe everything that Scottish Members say, one would be inclined to take that view. In connection with medical benefit, for instance, there is a waste of money in the method of making application. If you have got 5,000 members, you have got to make 5,000 applications, instead of making your application as a whole. I think that in that direction a great deal of money is wasted. I will also suggest to the Financial Secretary that something might be done by way of giving the approved societies the benefit of Section 33 of the Friendly Societies Act. That would mean in stamps alone a very great saving in administration expenses of approved societies.
It seems to me to be an unsound proposition that any Government Department should be making money out of other Departments. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to speak, I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance on that particular point. A great deal was made by the hon. Member for Colchester of the sickness in certain societies which were nameless. But while he was speaking it appeared to me that those societies seemed to be confined entirely to agricultural areas, and it was probably a question more of wages than of sick benefit. In some cases the chances are that they were getting more money or as much money while they were off sick as if they were working, and one wants to know the whole of the circumstances before one can place its real value upon a statement of that character. It is an easy matter to criticise; it is much more difficult to construct; and as secretary of an approved society I have some appreciation of the difficulties of administration. We may be in numbers, which are some 20,000, smaller than many societies, but the initial difficulties of getting into working order wore very great, and I do not think that hon. Members in their criticisms have taken into account the difficulties of launching upon the country what the Financial Secretary has described as a gigantic scheme. If they had had any practical experience in the formation of even the smallest of the approved societies, they would have a better conception of the difficulties and the magnitude of the task. In reference to the question of casual labourers, we on these benches have heard with some satisfaction of the provision which has been made in the Bill. I do not think that anyone can

1127
have more than we have an appreciation of the difficulties of that task, and if only something can be done on the lines of what is done at Liverpool and Hull in the treatment of the casual labourers of the other ports of the country and casual labourers generally, it would be to the national advantage as well as to the individual benefit of these particular men.
6.0 P.M
I have not had the time or opportunity to study the Report which has been issued, but I have no doubt that it will repay anyone who can take the trouble to go properly through it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) suggested that no person could be found who was satisfied with the Act. I do not know that anyone could be found who is satisfied with any particular Act that is passed. Certainly those who have to do with the administration of the Act are not satisfied. As one who has been connected with trade unionism and friendly societies for over thirty years, I find that even with respect to our rules we are never satisfied. Year by year we are always finding the necessity of some change for the purpose of improving those rules. It would be, I think, a miracle to find that everybody was satisfied with the National Insurance Act as it is. A great deal has been made of the so-called injustices from which certain people suffer under the Act. I think it would be miraculous, where you have 11,000,000 of insured persons, not to find cases of hardship or injustice. What we want, in those cases which come before us, is to try to make provision so that similar occurrences may not take place in the future. Another point to which I wish to call attention is that to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), with whom I agree, in saying that the 3s. 5d. does not really give very great scope for efficient administration. My experience is that it is just a shade too little. If you want to prevent what is commonly called malingering, then you should have efficient visitation of the people who are receiving sick benefit; and, so far as the allowance at present given is concerned, it does not afford a very great margin for the payment of local secretaries, the payment of the expenses of the central department, or for the efficient supervision of those who are receiving benefits.
May I say in this connection that those of us who have to do with the administra-
1128
tion of the Act have not received very much support from the medical faculty. Medical men, within recent times at any rate, have talked a great deal about the honour of the profession, but from my knowledge and experience of the administration of the Act, I should like to see it in practice instead of in speech. If only the doctors would rise to the standard that they would have us believe they have set for themselves, it would do very much to prevent what one might describe as malingering. Criticism has also been offered as to the friendly societies giving those who are compulsorily insured the opportunity of also being voluntary contributors. May I say that when the worker is sick is the time that he requires most money and not less, and where a man is only getting a paltry 10s. a week sick benefit he goes to work before he is in a condition to do so, whereas, if he was getting a shilling or two shillings more in sick benefit it would afford him an opportunity of becoming thoroughly well before he resumed his employment, and there would be less danger of his breaking down. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should pay very much attention to criticisms of that character; at any rate, it has been my experience that the worker, as a rule, after an illness goes to work too soon, and there is a breakdown.
I can only say that in my experience the man who is receiving as much sick benefit as he would get in wages is a man who does not break down; he gives himself full opportunity of recovering from the illness that he suffers from. The women are making great complaint with respect to the maternity benefit. A great many of them, notwithstanding that the four-pences are deducted from their husbands' wages, hold that the women should be the legal receivers of the maternity benefit. That is a doctrine I agree with, and I hope that when the Bill goes upstairs that particular proposal will be looked upon with a favourable eye by the Minister responsible for the Bill. There is a good number of other proposals that I do not think it is necessary to put before those responsible for the Bill at the present moment; they are more points for Committee upstairs than for the House. I may say that so far as we on these benches are concerned we have never been carping critics of the Bill. Our desire is to make it more workable than it is, and any suggestions or proposals that we put forward will be for that purpose,

1129
and I consequently hope that when we do put them forward the right hon. Gentleman will give us credit for seeking to improve the Bill, and neither to hamper nor harass him in his efforts to make the present Act a more workable scheme.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: In intervening in this Debate, there is one thing at all events in connection with this Bill that I can commend, although it is something not contained in the Bill, and I hope I am right in taking it for granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made up his mind to refuse to give legal effect to a proposal for bolstering up this Act in Ireland by further subsidies to a secret society, in whose interests the Act has been forced upon Ireland, and by which it is practically administered and controlled. It will not be necessary for me on this occasion to go into the scandalous attempt being made to force medical benefit upon the people of Ireland and capture money which belongs to Ireland, and which is wanted for very much better purposes. The point to which I wish to direct my remarks is this: What is to become of Ireland's equivalents for the additional subsidies for medical relief which have been granted and are to be granted to Great Britain, and which are not found necessary in Ireland, because the ratepayers of Ireland are already paying for medical relief under a system of their own. In addition to the £1,800,000 Grant-in-Aid made to Great Britain already, I take it that this present Bill will involve something like £500,000 or £600,000 more to Great Britain, and obviously it would be intolerable to ask Ireland to pay her Imperial proportion of these enormous subsidies to Great Britain while she is to get nothing herself. If Ireland has not asked for an additional contribution for medical benefits it is simply because she does not get it, it is simply because the Irish ratepayers are already paying £100,000 a year under a medical relief system of their own, and they cannot afford to pay for it twice over.
The rough and ready system of equivalent Grants between the two countries, which has been carried on now for a period of at least twenty-five years, since the arrangement about the whisky money, is undoubtedly an exceedingly clumsy and unfair one to Ireland, but at all events it generally works out at about one-ninth or one-tenth of their subsidies, and consequently in this present instance it ought to yield to Ireland a sum of somewhere between £200,000 and £250,000 a year. Of
1130
that sum £50,000 has been already, I regret to say, appropriated, again at the instance and in the interests of the Board of Erin, in payment of doctors' certificates, without even satisfying the doctors. At any rate, a sum of at least £150,000 a year ought to be made due to Ireland, and what we want to know is whether that sum, which will not now be required for medical benefits in Ireland, will not be made available for a State subsidy to encourage the housing of the poorest of the labouring classes in the cities and towns of Ireland. That is of all other purposes by far the most urgent for which this money is now required. No doubt when earlier in the Session we urged the claims of the city and town labourers we were assailed with the usual abuse from the party behind me under the patronage of the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). They even went the length of denying Ireland's right to any equivalent at all for all those enormous subsidies to Great Britain, but they have since, I understand, dropped that contention like a hot potato, at all events since we brought this subject under the notice of the House earlier in the Session. I think it may be said that now there is practical agreement in all sections of opinion in Ireland that this use of the money would be the greatest possible national blessing, and would in addition be the very best form of health insurance that could be devised, because the slums of Irish cities and towns are really the source of disease in Ireland.
You have ready to hand what has been done for the agricultural labourers in Ireland, and which is now universally held to be the most humane and most successful experiment in local legislation that has ever been tried. The system is, roughly, that the labourer pays one-third the cost, or 1s. a week from his pocket. The local ratepayers pay another third and the remaining third is supplied by State subsidy. If even £150,000 per year, though I think Ireland's share ought to be £200,000 at least, but even if £150,000 as Ireland's equivalent under the Insurance Act were to be applied to this purpose, it would mean the provision, when capitalised, of at least 100,000 cottages, which could be let at one shilling per week in the towns and cities of Ireland. That would be one of the most glorious reforms that ever was accomplished. It would, practically speaking, complete the last link in the social regeneration of the

1131
working classes in Ireland. If you give any guarantee of any sort that the money will be applied to that purpose, we shall gladly support this Bill so far as it may command the support of the working classes. Unless we get some promise in that direction, and especially so long as there is any danger of this money being in any way filched from the labourers in the cities and towns in Ireland, who have the first mortgage on it and incomparably the most urgent claim on it, we shall, to the best of our small ability, certainly resist and defeat this Act in this House or out of it, and we will do our best to defeat anybody and everybody who may be a party to defrauding the Irish labourers in the cities and towns of this money, which is their only hope of obtaining any substantial fruit from the legislation of the last quarter of a century to which they have been so unselfish and so patriotic parties.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I welcome the provisions of this Bill so far as they go, but they do not go very far, and I, for one, am going to express my deep disappointment, in view of the very strong feeling throughout the whole of the rural districts, that no attempt whatever has been made by this Bill to meet the more serious of the grievances which are felt in those areas. In the first place, the flat rate of weekly contributions remains untouched by the Bill, and I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman and this House that as long as the flat rate of premium payment remains, not only will the agricultural labourers and their employers have a well-founded grievance but no other form of Amendment of the National Insurance Act will tend to remove that grievance. In this connection I may remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I laid before the House, in conjunction with some of my colleagues, certain Mancheater Unity tables during the discussion of the National Insurance Bill, covering a period of over twenty years. They demonstrated to my mind, and to the mind of my colleagues, and I venture to think to the majority of the House, that agricultural labourers and rural workers generally were entitled to some differential treatment as compared with those who are engaged in less healthy and more hazardous occupations. We cited in support of our claim the precedent afforded by the national health insurance system in Germany, and in certain other
1132
countries. Certain arguments were laid before the House from the Front Bench to the effect that those tables were not altogether convincing, and that, in fact, the agricultural labourer towards the latter part of his life suffered from such a proportionately greater amount of illness that matters equalised themselves between him and his urban mate. There never was any proper basis for that statement made from the Front Government Bench, and the Actuaries' Report which was issued shortly afterwards, showed that although there might have been more serious illness in more advanced life, that the more serious illness did not begin until the age of seventy, at which time the provisions of the National Insurance Act came to an end.
But I am able to-day to strengthen my case in the interests of the agricultural community generally by the actually realised experience, since the Act came into force. I may remind the House that, in fact, we have not had as much experience as we should have liked to acknowledge, because so many of the small friendly societies who were carrying on, and I may venture to say, not only carrying on splendid work in our rural districts, but who formed in the old days the very basis of voluntary health insurance, so many of those societies have ceased to exist as the direct result of the Act, and also as the result, direct and indirect, of the policy of the Commissioners towards those societies. I am not going to enter into this question of the attitude of the Commissioners except so far as to say this, that they read into the Act, or, rather, they altered the Act or modified it by departmental regulations so as to restrict the effect of those Sections of the Act which would have enabled a large number of small societies to group themselves together into larger associations, and, to some extent, to obtain for their members the benefit for the higher standard of health which they enjoy. I have, at any rate, figures in respect of what is, I believe, the largest rural workers' friendly society in the Kingdom. I am not permitted, for reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), to give the name of this society, but if the right hon. Gentleman asks me to give it to him privately, of course, I have no objection whatever. During the first quarter in which the Act was in operation, the amount of sickness benefit paid during that quarter, ending the 13th of April this

1133
year, was, in the case of this large rural workers' society, £3,564 6s., and the amount of maternity benefit paid during the same quarter amounted to £1,305, making together an aggregate sum of £4,869 6s. On the other side I am entitled to point out what the Insurance Commissioners estimated as the average cost of sickness and maternity benefit per head of the whole population, agricultural and rural, taken together for the year. For that period they estimated that it would be at the rate of 3d. per week for the men, and 2d. per week for the women. Those figures taken on the basis of the membership of this society represented £662 per week, or in respect of the quarter, a sum of £8,206; that, is to say, the amount estimated by the Commissioners would, if their facts and figures and estimates were correct, upon sickness and maternity benefit, have amounted to over £8,000, whereas in fact the amount actually paid out amounted to no more than £4,800.
It may be said that the first quarter may for certain reasons be somewhat misleading and form no guide to future quarters. I have also the figures for the present quarter, or rather for the last, quarter, so far as figures are available, that is to say, for the nine weeks ending the 14th of June. There again, the aggregate figures for sickness and maternity benefit amounted, in fact, to £4,038 10s. as compared with an amount which, on the basis of the Commissioners' calculation, should have been £6,228. It is perfectly evident from those figures that as the result of realised experience, agricultural workers do not make anything like so large a claim upon the sick fund of their societies as workers in other Industries. I frankly ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in justice to the agricultural community, which he realises as well as I do, is not by any means the best paid section of the working classes, and, as he realises as well as I do, their employers are not by any means those who are making the largest profits out of the business in which they are engaged, I ask in the interest both of the employers and workers in rural districts, that some effort should be made to meet this well-founded grievance, which can only be met as I suggest, by altering the flat rate of premium paid. It may be said, "Well, if we, attempted to do this, we cannot do it by an Amendment of the existing Act, and we should have to tear up the Act." My answer to that is this: there is an
1134
old maxim in law which says, "Ubi jus ibi remedium." Where there is a right or where a wrong is offered, there is, under English law, a remedy. If it is the fact that there is, and I suggest that there is, and the figures prove it, a real injustice experienced to-day under this National Insurance Act in the country districts, surely that is a strong enough argument, if you cannot amend the Act, to start another scheme more equitable in its operation and incidence upon by no means the least important part of the body politic.
I believe an hon. Friend of mine opposite is going to draw attention to another rural grievance, and I will not do any more than just indicate what it is. It is the case of those agricultural labourers who are living in, as is very often the case in the northern counties of England, and in some of the counties in the right hon. Gentleman's own country. They receive what may appear to be a small wage of perhaps about ten shillings per week, the rest of their remuneration being represented by board and lodging, which is given them free. In many of those cases, and in almost all those cases in the North of England, the employers have been in the habit, and are still paying to those men full wages in the event of their illness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated more than once, I think, in this House that in such a case it shall not be obligatory upon the employer and his labourer to pay a premium for the sake of obtaining sickness benefit, and at the same time demand from the State for the labourer ten shillings sick pay. In fact, many cases have been brought before the magistrates, and, I believe, some before the judges of the High Court, and the Act is being interpreted to involve a larger aggregate payment during the time that the labourer is ill than he receives in money and kind during the time he is at work. In other words, it is putting a premium upon malingering without any advantage being derived by the master or the State. I will not refer further to the subject, as it is to be raised on the other side of the House.
I want to deal with one or two other matters not dealt with by this Bill. The first is what I believe to be the most serious drawback to the health insurance system to-day—the continuance of four bodies of Insurance Commissioners. I have never been able to understand, unless it is owing to the prejudice on the other side in favour of Home Rule, the

1135
object of having four bodies of Commissioners. It has enormously increased the aggregate work that has to be done by the Commissioners; it must have enormously increased the expense for which the public is largely responsible; and it has operated as a serious grievance amongst all the best regulated societies in the country. I refer, by way of illustration, to one which is probably as good an example of the injustice arising from having four Commissions as you will find in the country. At Swindon there is a large and very well-conducted society in connection with the Great Western Railway—the Great Western Railway Locomotive Running Department Staff Approved Society. That society has at the present time something less than 5,000 members in England, and something less than 5,000 members in Wales, the Great Western Railway running through both England and Wales. They are being told that they will not be allowed to stand on their own as a separate approved society, although their health standard is surprisingly high, and they are exceptionally well managed and have been as a voluntary society for many years past. They are told that they will have to associate next year for the purposes of valuation with members of other societies, which are not so well managed, and have not so high a health standard. The sole reason is that there are two different Commissions, one for England and one for Wales. That is a very good illustration of the injustice caused to a well-managed society which has members in more than one of the countries making up the United Kingdom.
Another case which must be well known to the right hon. Gentleman is that of the teachers. It is common knowledge that there are a large number of teachers, especially secondary school teachers, distributed all over the United Kingdom, many of them passing from one part to another. They have their own combined society, but they cannot in any one of the three smaller countries, and I believe not even in England, make up a sufficiently large number of members—5,000—in order to form a separate approved society, and so receive separate recognition for the purposes of valuation. That is another case—only one of many—where you have a class of persons engaged in a particular profession or occupation distributed all over the United Kingdom desiring to have a separate
1136
society confined to that section of the community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not going to accept an Amendment to combine these four bodies of Commissioners into one Commission, will give some reason for the continuance of what seems to be a most anomalous and unreasonable system. I should like to support very warmly the suggestion made on the Labour Benches that the maternity benefit should, by an Amendment of this Bill, be paid to the woman herself. I do not want to give illustrations, although I have here a large number of cases where the maternity benefit has never actually reached the unfortunate woman herself. It may be owing to a love of drink, or to other moral defects or extravagance, that, although this money is really provided for the woman at the time of her greatest need, it does not actually reach her hands. The women's societies feel very strongly on this point, and an Amendment will be put down from several quarters in Committee with a view to remedying this apparent injustice. Another matter upon which the agricultural workers feel very strongly, and I suppose it is not limited to agricultural workers, is that it is still necessary to pay premiums both under the Workmen's Compensation Act and also under the National Insurance Act, while value is only to be obtained under one Act or the other, but not under both. That system has never been justified in this House. We propose to put down an Amendment to meet that injustice.
I want to refer to one matter mentioned in the Bill. In future, by Clause 5, no voluntary contributor is to be entitled to medical benefit. Surely that is a breach of contract. If an insurance company some two years after effecting a life insurance were to say that the policy, although the premium continued to be paid, should be torn up, the person aggrieved would very properly say, "You have no right to do anything of the sort; you are committing a breach of contract." I suggest to the Government that they will commit a breach of contract if they tear up the provision of the National Insurance Act which provides for the insurance of certain voluntary contributors. But if they intend to do it, let it be done fairly and equitably. This Clause provides that where a voluntary contributor ceases to be entitled to medical benefit, the weekly contribution shall be reduced by 1d. only Where is the basis of the 1d.? The Government's own actuaries have shown that the medical benefit is worth 1.51d., or more than 1½d.

1137
That being so, if this contract is to be annulled, let it be annulled on an equitable basis—on the basis of an abatement of 1½d. and not of 1d. Another Clause to which I wish to refer is that which provides that no employer shall make a deduction from his employés' wages in respect of the employer's own contribution. I am very glad that that provision has been put into the Bill. I am only too conscious of the fact that many people who ought to know better have committed a dishonest breach of the National Insurance Act in deducting from their workmen's wages a larger sum—in some cases a very much larger sum—than they are entitled to do. I am not quite sure that I understand how the penalties are to be enforced as a result of the inclusion of that Clause. All I hope is that there will be penalties, and that they will be sufficient to deter anyone from indulging in this dishonest practice. I propose to put down an Amendment to that Clause, because, to my mind, as it is worded at present it will not meet all the cases that will arise under Schedule II. of the Principal Act. Subject only to that, I warmly welcome the provision. In conclusion, I should like to ask the Government whether they have any reason now, in view of the statements and figures which I have brought before the House and which others have mentioned in the country, for not doing something to alter the flat rate premium payment as it applies to agricultural labourers and their masters.
Sir LUKE WHITE: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Bathurst) has spoken with regard to the agricultural community. I also should like to say a few words on that subject. When the Insurance Act was passing through Parliament I took exception to the flat rate principles being applied throughout the country, because I thought then, and I think still, that it would inflict great injustice upon the agricultural community. Not only has it inflicted injustice upon the farmers, but it has to my mind inflicted grievous injustice upon the agricultural labourers. It has been said over and over again that if agricultural labourers would combine in their own districts they could become approved societies, and would then be able in a few years' time if they accumulated considerable sums of money to obtain greater benefits than the Act provides. I say, however, that at the present time, taking into consideration the position of the agricultural labourer, 4d. a week makes a great difference in the household budget
1138
as far as his wife and children are concerned. One penny or 2d. a week at the present time is a great tax on the household of an agricultural labourer. I will not go further into that matter except to say, that if an alteration of the flat rate cannot be made in connection with this Amending Bill, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have some inquiry made as to how that flat rate applies to agricultural districts, and, if possible, find some remedy. I am quite certain that a remedy ought to be found, and that the flat rate principle ought not to apply to agricultural districts as it does to industrial communities.
My main reason for rising is to refer to a matter which I had thought would have been brought within the purview of this Amending Bill. I refer to cases which have occurred where agricultural labourers, having been laid aside by illness, have not only received full wages but have been held by the Law Courts to be entitled to the 10s. per week in addition. That is a peculiar condition of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that two years ago a deputation waited upon him from the National Farmers' Union. That is a very strong organisation, consisting of not less than 20,000 farmers. They laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that in many counties, especially in Lincolnshire, there prevailed a custom whereby the farmer paid full wages to the agricultural labourer during illness, and they wanted to know what effect the Insurance Act would have upon that custom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the deputation that the 10s. per week would be paid to the farmer if he paid to the agricultural labourer his wages in full. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer now in this Amending Bill to carry out the pledge that he gave. A few weeks ago at Stamford County Court a man sued a farmer for £3. He had been away from his work for six weeks, and when the farmer paid him at the end of his contract the wages due to him he deducted £3, being at the rate of 10s. per week. The farmer told the labourer that he had got £3 under the Insurance Act, and that therefore he would only give him £1, so as to make up his full wages. The agricultural labourer made out that he ought to have his wages in full and have the insurance money as well, and he put the farmer into the County Court. The judge of the County Court gave judgment in favour of the agricultural

1139
labourer. He said that notwithstanding the conditions of the Insurance Act in regard to sickness, its main principles was to provide for the labourer or for the workman something on which he could subsist whilst away from work and during illness, and when he received no wages. And he said there was nothing in the Insurance Act which would entitle the farmer to reduce the wages to the extent of what the man got under the Insurance Act. Hence he gave judgment for the full amount.
In that particular case the agricultural labourer who was receiving a wage equivalent to £1 a week received also for the time of illness 10s. a week under the Insurance Act; with this conclusion: that when he was in health and strength and able to work he received £1 per week, and during his period of sickness the judge held he was entitled to 30s. per week. I do not think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that that ought to be continued. I do hope he will make some provision in this Amending Bill so as to cure that particular defect. It may be said that that is an isolated case, and that the County Court judge may be wrong. The National Farmers' Union have taken up these cases. There were two cases tried before the County Court judge at Lincoln about four weeks ago. The Country Court judge stated that it was a very important case, and that he would take time to consider his decision. In that Lincoln case the same state of things to which I have referred obtained—the man was entitled to £1 a week when he was working and if he was away through illness, or was laid up in the farmer's house, he was entitled by custom to £1 per week while he was ill. In that case also the farmer deducted from the wages the amount which the man had received under the Insurance Act. To-day the judge has given his decision in the case, and I have received a telegram from the secretary of the National Farmers' Union to the following effect:—
"Judge Baker found for plaintiff for full amount wages claimed, but at same time ventures to express the hope that this serious blot may be deleted by Parliament in the Amending Bill now under consideration."
I am certain that in these cases the House of Commons will see to it that justice is done. I am certain, also, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having these facts placed before him, will, at any rate, see to it that in this Amending Bill some
1140
Clause is inserted which will do away with this injustice on the agricultural community.
Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad that the Government have brought in a Bill to amend the Insurance Act. My only complaint against it is that it does not go far enough. The point I want to make tonight is that the Government made a very great mistake in not including Part II. of the National Insurance Act in this Amending Bill. The Insurance Act was presented to the country as a complete whole. I have got quotations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I can read if necessary, showing that when he introduced it and passed it he regarded it as one complete plan The Unemployment and the Health parts were really interdependent. I venture to submit that it is a very great pity that now there is an opportunity of passing Parts I. and II. of the Act under review that the Government have omitted to deal with the Unemployment part as well. If the Government think that there is complete satisfaction in regard to Part II. of the Act I can assure them that they are making a very great mistake indeed. It is not quite so unpopular as Part I., but that is simply because it does not extend to so many many persons. The working that there has been of Part II. has shown that in that part of the Act there are certain very grave defects which press exceedingly hardly on individuals who have been brought within its scope. I cannot conceive why the Government have not included Part II. in this Act. I should be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain why the Government have taken the course they have. It cannot be that they are short of time, because this Bill is going upstairs, and therefore it would not interfere with the rest of the business of the House.
I want to put a particular case which has been brought to my notice. In a large asylum in my own Constituency there are a certain number of bricklayers, carpenters, and other persons employed by the asylum authorities who come under the scope of Part II. of the Act. These men, to all intents and purposes, have got perfectly regular employment. They are never discharged unless they commit some offence. The amount of their work does not fluctuate. The number of patients in the asylum continues to be about the same, and for all practical purposes once a man

1141
is employed at the asylum and gives satisfaction, he knows that he can go on as a servant of the asylum committee for the rest of his life. But these men who are employed in Winwick Asylum, Lancashire, applied to the Board of Trade for an Exemption Order under Part II. of the Act, Clause 107, and it was refused. To my mind the excuse given is a purely technical one. It was that the medical superintendent had technically the power of dismissing these men without referring the matter to the committee, and that also the men were liable to be dismissed for reasons other than some grave fault. This is not what occurs in practice. In practice these men are assured of perfectly regular employment, and they feel this grievance very much indeed. They feel they have to pay 2½d. a week towards benefits which they are never going to enjoy. They feel it to be an intolerable hardship that they should be compelled to pay to something which is of no earthly use to them.
There is another case, the case of the ordinary employé of the country gentleman, or some man who does not run his business for profit, but keeps his employés engaged. Of course, he has the right to dismiss them at any moment, but we know that in hundreds and hundreds of cases these men never are dismissed. First father and then son continue to live on the estate, and there is no risk whatever of the men employed falling out of employment. I cannot conceive why the Government have shut out the opportunity of Amendment from their Amending Bill when you have got cases of that sort where the workmen are themselves satisfied, where their conditions of employment are secure, and where the employment part of the Act is really of no use to them ! Why in these cases should we not have some alteration of the Act which would enable them to contract out of it? I put down an Instruction to that effect, and I asked the Prime Minister if he would give facilities for its discussion. The right hon. Gentleman refused. As the Government know perfectly well, an Instruction cannot be discussed unless time can be found for it, as the Bill is going upstairs. I should like to take this opportunity of making an appeal to the Government that they should give time to pass that Instruction to the Committee who are going to consider this Bill, so that they should have the opportunity of passing Part II. under revision as well as the other parts. I do not believe that the
1142
Instruction would be opposed in any quarter of the House; it would, I believe, be passed by universal consent. It would not really give very much more work to the Committee upstairs to do. There are several defects in the Unemployment Section of the Act which requires amendment, though I admit they are not nearly as many as the points that have arisen in regard to Part I. Therefore I feel the Government, in making that concession, would be vastly improving the value of this Bill, and at the same time they would not be imposing an undue strain upon the labours of the House. I would like to make that appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope the Government will give it their consideration, because, although this is a small matter, it is a matter of vital importance to the men concerned, who cannot afford this reduction in their wages, which they regard as a gross injustice, and from which they see no prospect of ever deriving any benefit.
7.0 P.M
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): When Part II. of the Act was under discussion in Committee upstairs the cases of workmen employed on estates where the security of employment is high, raised by the Noble Lord who has just spoken, were fully discussed. But the Noble Lord does not perhaps realise that a certain number of estates are managed by contractors. If we exempted the workmen who are employed directly by the owners of estates we should at once be putting a certain disability upon contractors who employ their men under conditions which the Noble Lord will allow are less favourable in regard to continuity of employment. This had to be taken into consideration, and it was on those grounds that it was decided that no difference could be made, and that we-could not exempt the employés on private estates without also exempting the others who are employed by contractors. In regard to the other case it is one of a considerable number which have arisen under the Statute, and of which the main effect was foreseen. In an obviously incomplete system of unemployment insurance there must be difficulties about where the line is to be drawn. None of the cases which the Noble Lord quotes were unforeseen. Even if it was decided in such cases as the men employed in the asylum that they ought to be included, there is no occasion for doing that by a legislative amending Act. The Board of

1143
Trade has power both to exclude workers brought in and to include others not brought in. It is a matter of administration.
Viscount WOLMER: In the case which I cited the Board of Trade quoted the Act and said the Act did not give them authority to more than examine into the case.
Mr. ROBERTSON: It would be a matter in that case of very strict definition. I have not the whole of the details of the case cited by the Noble Lord before me, but if it was as he says the Board did not see any reason for an Amendment of the Act on behalf of a few employés. The exercise of legislative power and enactment is not desirable in every particular case. We cannot take into account as requiring legislation every possible case that arises.
Viscount WOLMER: Why not?
Mr. ROBERTSON: Because the cases brought before us can be dealt with by administrative Order. I cannot express an opinion offhand without knowing the full details of the case mentioned by the Noble Lord. I can only say if that is the only case that he can suggest it hardly calls for an amending Act. With regard to the more extensive demand for improvement in administration, that can be done if necessary.
Viscount WOLMER: Does the hon. Gentleman approve of discussing it when this Bill goes upstairs?
Mr. ROBERTSON: That is not a matter for me to say.
Mr. R. A. COOPER: I am personally as dissatisfied with this Amending Bill as I was with the original Act, and the attitude of the Government is well illustrated by the point my Noble Friend has raised, because when the original Act of 1911 was before the House as a Bill, in spite of the pressure we tried to bring to bear on the Government to try to get them to separate the Act into two parts, we were assured it was impossible or a most undesirable thing to do. This afternoon, when my Noble Friend put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject the right hon. Gentleman's reply was to the effect that if he wished to deal with Part II. a separate Bill from this Amending Bill would be necessary for that purpose. I was an opponent of the original Act and I voted
1144
against it, and I cannot say that I look with much more favour to-day upon the working of that Act than I did at the time I gave that vote. But to-night in this Debate we are necessarily confined to considering not the fundamental basis of the original Act, but rather an Amendment by which that particular Act can be made just and more advantageous and beneficial to the people of this country. There is one illustration I should like to give in support of my view not yet touched upon in this Debate and it is with regard to the contributions which are required from various sections of the wage earners in this country. I believe in the principle of contribution for all those working people who are able to earn a living, but we know perfectly well we have a large number, I believe about 4,000,000, of working people, including women as well as men, who are not able to fairly earn their own living, and if the State desires, in the interests of national health and the whole community, to carry out a certain scheme and compel everyone to come in, I think it is the duty of the State at least to consider the position of those people who cannot be said to be properly earning their living when they impose a tax upon their wages. I hope I may be in order when the time comes in trying to get an Amendment into this Bill with a view to raising the minimum exemption of 1s. 6d. in the Schedule to 2s. 6d. and the other figures up to 3s. 6d. in proportion. Such a proposal as that would increase in no way the financial obligations of the State under the amending Act, because I think probably the employer would have to bear the extra burden, and I maintain that if employers want to enjoy (he advantage, or the necessity, as it may be, of low wages, then I think such a small burden as that extra penny or twopence or threepence may well be charged upon the employer.
There is another point to which I direct attention to illustrate my dissatisfaction with this Amending Bill. There is no reference in this Bill to one of the greatest cases of hardship which I consider ought to be dealt with, and that is the effect of this Bill upon charitable institutions. By way of illustration let me mention the Church Army, and I believe the same is true also of the Salvation Army and other bodies whose one purpose is to lift the people out of the mire. In the case of the Church Army, I am told they are spending £4,000 out of their income in order to pay the taxes under the Insurance Act. My

1145
hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire spoke of the great disadvantage to the whole of the United Kingdom of having four separate Commissions. I think I am right in saying that in one of the Government Reports it is stated that these four Commissions cost the country £1,000,000 more than one general Commission would cost. Therefore, under this system, whatever may be said in favour of it, the fact remains that the existence of these four Commissions entails an expenditure of somewhere near £1,000,000, which I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me we could spend to very great advantage in other directions under this Act. One other interesting point arises in connection with these four Commissions. Some hon. Member made reference to the method by which payment for maternity benefit is made. In Scotland and Ireland, under the regulations of their separate Commissions, these payments may not be made on any licensed premises. I believe very strong representations have been made to the Government from time to time with regard to England and Wales that, at any rate in the case of approved societies including in their membership women and young persons, the Commissioners should preclude payment being made upon licensed premises, and, for some extraordinary reason which I cannot understand, their respective Commissioners have refused to give England and Wales what I regard as the advantage which is given in the case of Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. HODGE: It is not the case that societies pay on licensed premises in England.
Mr. COOPER: A great many, I am afraid, do. The hon. Member, perhaps, does not know.
Mr. HODGE: As secretary of an approved society of 20,000 members I do know.
Mr. COOPER: I never alleged that every society did it. I merely alleged that there are a great many, and what is worse there are some approved societies in England and Wales which admit women and young people to membership, and maternity benefit at any rate is paid over on licensed premises. The hon. Member has more to do with the working of this Act than I have, and if he tells me I am entirely wrong I will be very glad to withdraw.
Mr. HODGE: It is not the fault of the approved society.
Mr. COOPER: Very likely. But if we are to direct our view to the faults of individuals in societies, and not to the societies themselves who are to be responsible for making the alterations, we should never have need of insurance societies at all. The last point I wish to raise is with regard to medical benefit. The Preamble of the original Act lays down in explicit words that the purpose of the Act is the prevention and cure of sickness, and this purpose is to be hastened by national health insurance. I am not going to lay too much stress upon this particular point, but I want to keep it before the House. It is, I admit, rather early to begin to talk about extending the Act to the other fourteen millions of workers in this country who at the present time do not come under it. But I would point out that however great the progress of the Act may be in this country in educating and preventing the people against ill-health, unless we do at some early date consider means by which the principle we have now adopted for the workers can be extended to dependants just as is recognised to be necessary in the case of tuberculosis; if we are really to see at the end of five or six or seven years some material results for the money we are spending we will have to aim at including the dependants of the workers. On this question of medical benefit there is one matter that has arisen in which I hold the Insurance Commissioners to be greatly at fault. The Act has laid down in express words for adequate medical benefits under the Act, and in the Regulation made in the First Schedule, Part I., No. 386, we find it is laid down that—
"where the condition of the patient is such as to require the services beyond the competence of the ordinary medical practitioner, the practitioner shall advise the patient as to the steps to be taken in order to obtain such treatment as his condition may require."
The point I would make upon this matter, and one which I think ought to be made in this House is, that we should let the country clearly understand whether the adequate medical treatment promised right and left when the Act was introduced, and which promise is to be found in the actual wording of the Act, is carried out by the Commissioners, or whether the Commissioners by regulation are not whittling down the extent of the medical benefit promised, and are not leaving them

1147
to bear the extra burden of cost for such treatment out of their own earnings or obtain them through charitable institutions. To my mind, that is one of the things which the Commissioners; in the interests of this Act, ought to put first and foremost before the country and to see that it is adequately secured. I would like to point out the curious position in which the insured people to-day are, under the Act as it stands, when they pay their 3d. or 4d., as compared with the paupers in this country. The paupers of this country have an admirable system of infirmaries, where they can get admirable medical treatment, and if it is right for the State to provide adequate medical treatment for paupers, without any contribution or tax on wages, surely, when we come to an Insurance Act dealing with the whole of the workers of this country, it becomes, at least, as necessary that we should provide them with an equally adequate medical treatment. It is obvious to those who are working in other directions on public bodies, notably county councils or local councils, that we are getting practically a quadruple system dealing with health in this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often state that even a dual system such as we have to-day for education is more or less wasteful, but when we come to have a quadruple system under which we are working as regards public health, I think it is most disastrous, and the sooner the Government can see their way to deal drastically with the public health question the greater the progress we shall make, particularly in dealing with such questions as tuberculosis and the general health of the people of this country. Now we have got this Insurance Act—I may say that I voted against it, and should vote against it with pleasure to-morrow—we have got to make the best of it, and the one fundamental fault, to my mind, to-day, in the carrying out of this Act, is that the Government are too much inclined to be content with tinkering with the subject. I think they ought to concentrate their minds more and more on the prevention of disease, instead of being satisfied with curing it.
Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member who has just spoken says he looked forward to the time when some reform of our public health system would be undertaken. Although I agree with him, I do not think that is particular material to the subject under discussion to-day. The hon. Mem-
1148
ber told us that he voted gladly against the Insurance Act, and would do so with pleasure to-morrow, and yet a great deal of his speech argued in the direction that we should bring women and children within the scope of the Insurance Act. In view of what the hon. Member said, I think that seems to be somewhat illogical. I should like to confine myself to two or three questions raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster). The former, in the beginning of his speech, said that the first Clause of this Bill really altered the general conception of the National Insurance Act. In some respects that is true, because the money voted here is in addition to the two ninths contributed under the National Insurance Act. What I was not clear about was whether he objects to this money being voted. Does he object to the House of Commons in this matter voting additional money for this or kindred purposes, because, if he does object, it means that if these purposes are to be carried out the burden must be shifted on to the approved societies? His main contention was that we ought to relieve approved societies of these burdens. Unless he is willing that the House of Commons or the Legislature shall make additional Grants, then he must, place extra burdens on the approved societies.
As a matter of fact, the hon. Member did not object because he cannot object. He knows perfectly well that if the Government have to provide these extra benefits for people over fifty, for old persons, in respect of medical benefit they must do so by additional State assistance, and we cannot expect that the financial provision made in the principal Act would meet this, and we cannot place these burdens on the societies. The hon. Member for Colchester said we ought to be very careful about being generous at other people's cost, and he referred with some complaint to the provision of full sickness benefit given to persons over the age of fifty. I think that is one of the best provisions in the whole Bill. If a man has arrived at the age of fifty, he certainly has arrived at a time when he needs all the sickness benefit he can possibly get. The hon. Member told us that in thus giving full benefits to insured persons we were departing from the general practice of friendly societies. That is quite true, but I do not quite gather whether the hon. Member objects or approves of such provision. He

1149
criticised the granting of this money and suggested that we might perhaps use the money in a better way. What better way does he suggest? That, after all, is a business proposal which I think we are entitled to look for from any critic. The only proposal the hon. Member did make was that he suggested we should give additional money towards the administrative expenses of approved societies. I think the approved societies may possibly have a substantial claim in this direction, but perhaps the hon. Member will inform us as to whether he is in favour of reducing this benefit which it is proposed to give to insured persons over the age of fifty in order to provide more administrative expenses for approved societies.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I said I had no objection to increased benefits, but they should not be paid for out of the funds belonging to the younger members.
Dr. ADDISON: What it now amounts to is that the hon. Member is in favour of giving less than the full sick benefit to persons over the age of fifty in order that an equivalent amount may be given towards the administrative expenses of approved societies.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not what I said.
Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member referred to a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he urged that this should be treated as a non-party measure. I do not know that anyone has any particular ground of complaint for his reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, because he gave a very admirable description of what he was dealing with. I wish to quote to the House a leaflet which was issued during the by-election at Leicester, in which we were told—
"that £89,000 of the servants' money is given every year to new officials appointed by the Radical Government to collect the servants' insurance tax."
Mr. COOPER: Is that quotation from a Labour or a Unionist leaflet?
Dr. ADDISON: It is from a Unionist leaflet, and I have a large stock of others here. Whilst I fully sympathise with the hon. Member's suggestion that the societies may find that they want more money for administrative expenses, it is too early at this stage to know what their general average of expenditure is likely to be. Their expenses, I know, have been heavy in consequence of the initiation
1150
of this insurance scheme, but the very last part of this scheme which I should take money from would be the extra sickness benefit for old insured persons.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not suggest that.
Dr. ADDISON: I understood the hon. Member to say that he would be willing to reduce the amount to be voted for the extra sickness benefit in order to provide more money for administrative expenses of friendly societies.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not responsible for the hon. Member's understanding, and if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that that is not what I said.
Dr. ADDISON: I think we all recognise the gravity of the statement which has been made that excessive sickness claims are being made by approved societies, and that it is likely to lead to the bankruptcy of some of them. The hon. Member for Colchester quoted some country societies, and he said that, according to the statement of accounts of some of those societies, they appeared to be greatly embarrassed by these claims. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Charles Bathurst)—whose interesting speech the Government must give the fairest consideration to, for everybody recognises the fair and generous criticisms he always makes—a few minutes afterwards made exactly the opposite complaint. He brought a case before the House where a rural society had only had claims upon them amounting to a little more than half of what they anticipated, and the hon. Member made a point in favour of the separation of rural societies in consequence of that. It is perfectly evident that if the society to which the hon. Member for Colchester was referring was a rural society, it was certainly in a different part of the country to the society referred to by the hon. Member for Wilton, although I should have expected that generally rural societies would be much more likely to have the experience represented by the hon. Member for Wilton than the experience stated to the House by the hon. Member for Colchester.
It is very unlikely that rural societies will present very heavy claims for sickness benefits upon their funds, and I think that a good deal of these statements are founded on newspaper reports, which are often of a very one-sided character.

1151
We have had in the course of a campaign with which we are all perfectly familiar various newspaper reports generally prejudicial to the efficient and smooth working of the Act. Those cases which are favourable to the general scheme of the Act, such as have been brought out by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, do not receive the same amount of publicity as those which are unfavourable. As a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman himself stated, the claims which have been made on these societies, so far as the first quarter is concerned, are really rather less than was anticipated. There has been a considerable amount of sickness during the past quarter, rather more than the average, and we also have to recognise that many people are being brought into the societies who are really relatively poor lives. The hon. Member for Colchester appeared to complain at the smallness of the number of deposit contributors. He seemed to complain that the approved societies have swept into their net these 2,600,000 whom he expected would be deposit contributors. I think that all who are interested in national insurance will heartily rejoice that these people have been swept into the net of the approved societies.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear.
Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member now says "Hear, hear." All I can say is that his position appears to me to be seriously illogical. He wants to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. We have had complaints that the Act does not do enough, and directly we get outside we are told that the Act is making societies bankrupt. We have Amendments moved here by the score, which would certainly make the Act bankrupt if they were adopted. On the other hand, we are told outside the number of things which the Act does not do, and which it really ought to do. I have here, for example, a record of a number of things which the Act does not do. This was published in support of the candidature of the hon. Member for East Cambridgeshire. We were told by the Unionist party that the Act has led to unemployment; that it gives no death benefit or funeral allowance; and that it gives no medical benefit to the wives and children of insured persons. Are these complaints against the Insurance Act?
Mr. COOPER: Yes.
Dr. ADDISON: I admit that the hon. Member for Walsall did vote against the Bill, and I cannot include him in this general indictment, but are these really complaints against the National Insurance Act? It certainly would be bankrupt if any one of these things were placed in it. This is nothing like the whole of the category. The next thing is that it robs the workman of his rights under the Workman's Compensation Act. Then it gives nothing to a man in a regular job, and it gives no benefit in the case of unemployment when it is caused by a strike or a lock-out or a trade dispute. When the Bill was before the House, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the last to suggest that National Insurance Funds should be used to aid a strike or a lock-out. It is a very remarkable procedure to issue statements of this kind, which are complaints against the Act, as to what it does not do when any one of these things put into it would necessarily make it bankrupt. Hon. Members come here to-day and say that, we are not doing enough in the Bill which we are bringing forward, whereas, if we did more, we should certainly bankrupt the whole scheme. Hon. Gentlemen opposite either object to the whole thing altogether, which one could thoroughly understand, or they do not, and neither the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester nor the leaflets to which I have referred in any way make that position clear. If the hon. Member for Colchester and his Friends would like to reduce the additional sickness benefit for people over fifty, then I sincerely hope that they will move Amendments to that effect.
These excessive claims are due to two causes. They are due in the first place to the novelty of the Act. A large number of persons for the first time in their lives have found themselves able to have medical attendance and sickness benefit. We have had a good deal said about medical men not doing their duty properly by the Act. I dare say that there may be cases to be found of medical men who are not doing their duty by the Act, though I do not know of any myself. It is quite conceivable there may be some, and, if there are, and such cases can be established, I sincerely hope that they will be dealt with with the utmost severity. The General Medical Council issued a general instruction on this question, and I hope that the Commissioners, if they can estab-

1153
lish a case, will press it through to its proper conclusion; but I think myself that there are very few of these cases. I have consulted a large number of medical men and they all say the same thing. They go round among their patients and they say that these people are not, as a matter of fact, malingering; they are really ill. Take, for instance, the case of married women. It is exactly what one with a real experience of the problem would expect to find. Large numbers of these married women, who are insured persons, are home workers, and they have never been able to have proper treatment in the whole of their lives. They have done the household work and have had to earn the family living, and they have been underfed and underpaid for years. For the first time these women when they are ill are able to receive medical attendance and sick pay and to lie in bed for a week.
One medical man told me he had made it his business to go round the whole of his female patients to ascertain whether or not there had been malingering, and he said: "I could not honestly say that any of these women, if they had been your relatives or mine, would not have been sent for six weeks' holiday." That is exactly what has happened. It is not a case of malingering with these married women. I dare say there are some cases of malingering, but, in the main, it is due to the fact that a large mass of sickness has been revealed for the first time. It is mainly due to the fact that these people have never had a chance of having sick pay before. They have gone on with their work when they ought to be resting. I have no doubt that as this fact becomes revealed it may make increased demands upon the State, but I do not think that the State could contribute to a worthier object. I am quite convinced that, whatever may be said in general, the additional sickness which has been revealed is genuine sickness in the main. It is not malingering, except in a small degree, and it is not negligence on the part of the doctors except in a very trivial degree; it is real sickness with which the Act is dealing effectively for the first time. There is one other point with which I will deal, and that is the request of the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks Division (Mr. Forster) that the Government will generally allow what is called "contracting out." I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do nothing of the kind. There is no reason at all why self-respect-
1154
ing medical men should not join the panels, and any medical man who is on the panel can give his patients a freer choice than in any other district. As a matter of fact, with the exception of London and Edinburgh, practically all the medical men are on the panel, and this question raised by the hon. Member really does not apply. It applies mainly in London and in Edinburgh, and perhaps to some small extent in one or two other places, but, as some of us warned the medical profession earlier on, contracting out is a thing which can be used in two ways. They have found that out in South Wales during the last three months, and I am quite certain that whatever scattered people may say the official organisation of the medical profession will not put forward contracting out in the future as they have done in the past.
There is no real reason for contracting out except in special cases, such as were frankly contemplated when the Amendment was introduced. Any self-respecting medical man can put his name on the list, and there are some of the very best men in the medical profession whose names are on the list. If it were not for the fact that a certain number of medical men have contracted an unholy alliance with a party in the State, we should have at least one thousand more medical men on the panel in London to-day. We had a body frankly set up to break down the medical machinery of the Act in league with the Moderate party at the recent London County Council election. It is no good hon. Members dissenting; it is an actual fact. This organisation, which was called "The London Medical Committee," gave official support to the Moderate county council candidates. We had the same organisation in the "Times" newspaper the other day setting up a Non-Panel Medical Practitioners' Association. The men who are organising this kind of opposition would not, as a matter of fact, be reconciled by anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do, and, in my opinion, it is just as well to recognise it. I believe and sincerely hope the Government and the Commissioners will do everything they can to meet every reasonable and fair objection, but you cannot satisfy the people who are carrying on this agitation, and I certainly hope they will make no attempt to do so. You will not satisfy them by giving contracting out. There is only one thing which would satisfy them, and that is for the medical machinery of the Act to break down. I

1155
am perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks has been seriously misled in pressing this general demand—I take it he is pressing it generally—for allowing contracting out.
Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member thinks I have been misled, let him clearly understand what it was I said. I did not put it forward from the doctor's point of view. I am taking the patient's point of view, and the patient's point of view only, and I know there is a very real demand on the part of the patient.
Dr. ADDISON: That is the very point I was coming to. It is not in the patient's interest, and that is the very reason why the Commissioners could not approve of it on any large scale. What does it mean? The man who contracts out renders himself to some extent liable to pay for his own medical attendance, or, rather, for medical attendance which he could get free under the general scheme of the Act. If the man fairly understood the two sides of the question, there would not be so much objection to his doing it, but we find, as a matter of fact, that those who, at the instigation of the doctors, or some other persons, apply to make their own arrangements, have not, except in very few cases, the faintest conception what it means. It is not in the general interest of the mass of insured persons that they should make themselves liable to obligations in respect of medical treatment which they can obtain free by insurance under the Act. It would also take away from the Commission appointed by the Government that degree of control which they should have if there is ultimately to be co-ordinated a proper, uniform, rational, medical service.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: The last point mentioned by the speaker who has just resumed his seat, I will deal with later on. But I should like to refer to some others of the various topics raised in that very discursive speech. The hon. Gentleman seems to think he has answered all the objections that can be made to the Bill by simply saying that if we introduce these changes the Bill will break down. That is a very singular argument. He does not attempt to prove that the various points brought forward in successive speeches by the hon. Members for Wilton, Colchester, and other places, are not serious blots in the Bill, but he says that if you attempt to put right these questions in the Bill then you will break it down. Could there be a
1156
more severe condemnation of the Bill than that? I come to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge). He made some rather grave and offensive charges against the medical profession, and he followed exactly the same line of inconsistency that one observed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He dealt with the question of malingering. He said in one sentence that malingering was the outcome of certain conduct on the part of members of the medical profession who had forgotten their honour, their principles, and their conscientious convictions, and that had given rise to these suspicions But in the very next sentence he declared that malingering did not exist in reality at all, and that it was a great deal better a sick man should seek early medical aid and give himself a rest as soon as possible. Therefore, he said, the charge of malingering was a false calumny. But you cannot have it both ways. If you bring an accusation against the doctors, and say that they encourage malingering, and if you follow that up by saying that malingering does not exist at all, it would seem that the accusation is brought without thinking where the material for it is to be found.
The hon. Member, however, seemed to find ground for very serious criticism of the Bill. I remember the circumstances under which one point to which he objected was discussed — the question of the division of administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well at that time that this division of administration would not be so very advantageous as it seemed, but under the pressure of sentiment for Home Rule this matter was pressed forward. I myself and several other hon. Members on this side resisted the division of administration as calculated to greatly increase the expenditure, and now we find the hon Member for Gorton and his colleagues, who opposed us on that occasion, have come to the conclusion, after the test of working—for the proof of the pudding is in the eating—that it has been a vast mistake, that it has given rise to great confusion, that it has cost a great deal of trouble and money to friendly societies, and that it has enormously increased the extravagantly administrative waste which has been characteristic of the working of this Act. That in itself shows that the hon. Member is ready to criticise the Bill on a good many points.
I wish rather to deal with the accusation—because it was nothing but a very

1157
grave accusation accompanied by no proof —which was brought by the Secretary to the Treasury, not only against the medical profession as a whole, but against a particular section of it in a particular county. He told us that if he could only bring forward the evidence he had in his possession, he would show that medical men in the county of Lancashire were guilty of a grave dereliction of duty and were encouraging malingering. Is that the sort of accusation that should be brought by a Minister of the Grown in his place in Parliament without producing ample proof of every word used? Many of these doctors in Lancashire are my own constituents, and I know how eager they are for their work. To bring an accusation of this sort based upon so little evidence is wrong, and I should term it an indecency on the part of a Minister of the Crown. In the very next sentence, however, the right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself. First, he said the Lancashire doctors were betraying their confidences and lowering their professional reputations by putting themselves in league with those who attempted malingering. He gave no proof that this charge of malingering has any foundation at all, but he went on to say that there was abundant evidence to prove that there was a great increase of illness during certain months to which the suggestion of malingering applied. He indicated in fact that the charge against the doctors was baseless, and that malingering did not even exist to any great extent, because there had been an epidemic of illness, which, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, accounted for the increased sickness, and the consequent demands upon the friendly societies.
It is perfectly plain, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit it, that the working of medical relief under this Act has not been entirely satisfactory. The hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) admitted that, and every speaker one after another has agreed that a change must be made, and that if you wish for an improvement you must ask the help, counsel, and co-operation of the medical profession. And they axe ready to give it. The right hon. Gentleman himself told me last year after some of the conferences, that we had to the best of our ability helped him to try and bring about a compromise on various points. You must have the doctor's help. But how can you expect it if you bring against the medical profession and against a particular section of that profession, charges such as
1158
the Secretary to the Treasury has brought? We know what has been the course of our experience in the carrying out of this Act. We know how we were told not only by the medical profession, but by right hon. Members opposite in August of that particular year, that we had helped and aided and been reasonable. I remember perfectly well listening to the complimentary phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion Yet when we came back in October, we found there was to be a drastic Closure, an avoidance of discussion on all controversial points, and the hurrying through of the Bill, in order that the decks might be cleared for the Home Rule programme of the Government. That was not the way to carry out a piece of legislation like this which, above all others, required care, consideration, and the due weighing of the pros and cons of each particular detail. The right hon. Gentleman cannot think that after such treatment, after them rounding upon us, after telling us we were obstructing, after first declaring that the medical profession were reasonable in their demands, and then asserting what has been repeated by the hon. Member for Hoxton, that they would never be satisfied unless they destroyed the medical provisions of the Bill—
8.0 P.M.
Dr. ADDISON: I alluded to the particular section which was running the organisation called the London Medical Committee; I was not speaking of the medical profession generally, but of that small militant section which is decreasing every day.
Sir H. CRAIK: The militant section comprised a very large proportion of the members of the medical profession, and I do not think it is fair to those who thus expressed their views, or that it is a likely way of conciliating one's opponents to suggest that they will never be satisfied except with the complete destruction of the medical provisions of the Act. Speaking for the medical profession, some five thousand of whom I have the honour to represent—a not inconsiderable proportion of the whole medical profession in the country—speaking for them, I am perfectly certain that they are ready to listen to any reasonable attempt at compromise. They dislike the contracting system. In Lancashire they have objected to it, and one curious point about the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury was that he said that one reason for the existence of

1159
malingering in Lancashire was that they never had liked the contract system in that county and had always resisted it. But now it has been introduced, and even if they were prepared to go against their consciences, their duty, and the honour of their profession, the whole motive for doing so is gone. They are no longer seeking for private practice amongst the people who are free to choose what doctors they like. They have gone on the panel, and the implied accusation of the right hon. Gentleman that they have encouraged malingering because they hated the contract system disappears, when contract practice has actually been brought in and the free choice of doctors done away with. I am quite convinced, however, that the doctors would help in any reasonable plan. They are not impracticable or impossible people. I know from personal knowledge that they are anxious, above all things, to help their suffering fellow creatures, and I reiterate my own opinion that greater elasticity with regard to choice of doctors and in regard to the medical fee is an absolute necessity. Sooner or later the better class of working man will himself take that view, even if he has to forego the pittance you give him for medical relief. He has it embedded in his habits and in his affection for those around him that he shall have the doctor of his own choice. It is not enough to say to him, "You must take one of the doctors on the panel." No Amendment of this Act will be satisfactory until you give greater freedom of choice of medical attendants, which never had a more eloquent and fervid supporter than the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he pointed it out as one of the advantages of the Bill, but which, like many of the refreshing fruits, has vanished in the working of this Act. I am not speaking for anyone else, and I have no right to speak for the party, but I must say plainly that I am in favour of greater elasticity in regard to the whole principle of this Bill. I am an entire supporter of the proposal that you should make this a voluntary instead of a compulsory scheme. If you took a poll or a Referendum of the whole of the inhabitants of the country at this moment, you would get a vast majority in favour of the voluntary as against the compulsory principle. I have no hesitation in saying that you would have brought about the greatest benefits under this Act
1160
by the voluntary principle. I should not have hesitated to provide financial temptation that would have brought everyone within the range of the Act. You would have got in a more easy, manageable and workmanlike way all the essential benefits of this Act if you had introduced into your medical relief greater elasticity and freedom, and if you had made the principle of the Bill voluntary instead of compulsory.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I am not competent to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into all that he has said with regard to the medical profession. I only remark that it must be a matter of satisfaction to all of us that so many members of that profession have altered their views in regard to this Act, and have found in practice that many of the fears they previously expressed were unfounded, and are seeing not only that their own profession is not ruined, but that the cause of public health is being largely advanced. Those of us in this House who wish well to this Act desire that no word may be spoken here that will do anything to prevent the process of healing that is going on in the country. Neither will I follow the hon. Gentleman in regard to his wish that this should be a voluntary measure. All I will say is that those who have had any experience of matters of this kind in industrial concerns will be able to point out to the hon. Member that under a measure like this you are practically bound to have compulsion if you are going to get into the benefits of the Act many of those who need it most. I want to refer for a moment to some remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the excessive sickness which the figures in many quarters with regard to the working of this Act have shown. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) that while there is no doubt a certain amount of malingering going on, what accounts for this excessive sickness more than the malingering is the fact that large numbers of men and women, for the first time in their lives, are finding that they have a chance of easing off from their daily work and really trying to get well. I watched for some time the working of an experiment in a large industrial factory, where the heads of that factory came to the conclusion that when a man or woman was sick he or she should get as much money as when they were in work. In the first few months of the working of that scheme the rate of sickness went up extraordinarily, and it looked as if the

1161
sick society might become bankrupt but as the months went on the normal rate of sickness was resumed, and those who went most carefully into the facts came to the conclusion that the contention of my hon. Friend was perfectly correct, and that for the first time large numbers of men and women took the necessary time off in order to get into a robust state of health. I believe that what happened in that isolated instance which I happened to watch has been happening throughout the country. Therefore, I agree that the Government would have been unwise to have made, on six months' figures, any proposal in this Amending Bill to deal with that, question.
The Government, in the suggestion that they have made to-night of appointing a Committee in the autumn to look carefully into this question of malingering and other questions connected therewith, have taken the wise and the right course, and the result of that Committee's inquiries will be most fruitful to this House in future years. I am one of those who believe that in the natural order of events this Government or any other Government is bound, year by year, or at different periods, to bring in Amending Bills in connection with an Act like this. Experience forces it upon you. The facts you elicit, if you are going to attend to them, mean that you have to deal with them in Amending Bills. It might be a very happy thing for this country if on every 15th July an Amending Bill were introduced. Holding that view, I understand the remarks some hon. Gentlemen opposite have made as to other suggestions they would like to see incorporated in this Bill. I have great sympathy indeed with what has been said by more than one hon. Member on the opposite side when they expressed the hope that some Amendment will be made with regard to the compulsory contributions from those who are not earning a living wage. I expressed my view upon this subject when the Principal Act was before the House. I had then and I have now grave doubts as to how far this House is right in compelling by law those who are not earning a living wage to insure in this way. I should have been glad if there had been some Clause dealing with that, but I recognise, and the House must recognise, that you cannot do everything at once. The question of the right treatment of the deposit contributor will come before the House next year, and, when it does, I hope that the kindred question of those who are
1162
not receiving a living wage and yet are forced to contribute will be considered very carefully at the same time. Just because we are finding there are fewer deposit contributors than we expected it is all the more important that the question should be carefully discussed by this House.
I desire to refer to what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) said with regard to casual labour, and the proposal with regard to it in this Bill. Personally, I believe the Government have taken the right step in giving these larger powers to the Insurance Commissioners to carry through different schemes. What is wanted in connection with casual labour is a series of experiments. It would not be possible for this House, even if it debated this question for a month, to put into an Act suggestions that would cover all cases of casual labour. I specially want to refer to one point, upon which I hope we may see an Amendment in this Bill. As it does not mean the expenditure of any more money, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it careful consideration. I do not think we are quite fair to the wishes of the women in this measure, and just because of recent events it is all the more important that this House should consider with very great care propositions put to us by any large body of organised women in this country. I therefore hope the Government will be willing to accept one or two Amendments which the women of this country very much desire. I agree with the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) that it would be a wise thing if the maternity benefit were considered as a benefit for the wife, and if in some way the money could be paid direct to her. I have a list of a large number of hard cases that have happened through the benefit being paid to the man and through the man using it for drink or other purposes. I know the suggestion I make will not get over every difficulty, but I believe it will do something to meet the views of the women of this country, and will safeguard the expenditure of the money on the object-for which the Act was passed.
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.— [By Order.]
  Consideration deferred till to-morrow (Wednesday) at a quarter past Eight of the clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Mr. ROWNTREE(continuing): I want to rather specially urge this upon the Chancellor, because I believe no benefit has been more fruitful than this maternity benefit or is more likely to be succesful in bringing about better health amongst the poorer classes. I believe there is another Amendment which wants making. It was always understood that in the case of the insured married woman she got the husband's maternity benefit, but, that in addition she should get 30s., the equivalent of four weeks' sickness at 7s. 6d., in her own right, and I fancy that in the last actuarial tables which were issued in connection with the main Bill that sum was reckoned for. Many societies have interpreted the Clause in that Act differently from the Commissioners, and I hope that in this Bill we shall do something to make it absolutely certain that in future the married woman gets this 30s. without having to be forced to get a doctor's certificate, and that the certificate of the midwife will be considered sufficient.
There is only one other point I desire to make, and I hardly know how the Government are going to carry it out, but in connection with a measure like this, which has to be administered by hundreds and thousands of men and women to whom the ordinary Parliamentary language or legal phraseology of a Bill is very difficult to interpret, I believe something wants doing in some way to obtain suitable phrasing so that a layman can understand what is intended. This is an Amending Bill. You naturally refer to the main Bill. Many private Members must find it extremely difficult to interpret this Bill. I am not sure whether many Members on the Government Bench would not find it extremely difficult. I should like to ask anyone what is meant by Sub-section (2) of Clause 6. If it is hard for us to understand it, it is almost impossible for a
1164
simple man who has to administer this Act to understand it, and I hope the Chancellor or the Commissioners will consider very carefully how, when this becomes an Act, the phrasing can be made so clear to those who have to administer it that there really can be no mistake. I think the Amending Bill meets perhaps the most pressing questions which have arisen during the past year, and I hope that not only shall we pass the Bill, but that we shall pass it with goodwill, and that we shall accept with pleasure the offer that has been made by the Government to-day to accept Amendments from all sides of the House, if they really are such as to improve the character of the Bill.
Mr. HUNT: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words—
"a Special Commission of a thoroughly representative character, to consider the scheme of national insurance with a view to its material amendment as may be found necessary, shall at once be appointed and until such Commission's Report no attempt shall be made to amend the Act."
I am moving the Amendment, although in Clause 7 the Government are giving the Commissioners power to give relief to casual labour in much the same way as the Amendment that I put forward during the Committee stage. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Rowntree) say that if you can compel people to pay for insurance, you should be quite sure that they are able to pay. It has been one of my objections to the Bill that so many people in this country, under the Free Trade system, are so poor that they really cannot afford to pay the fourpence a week. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Master-man) said the Government hoped that we should help them to pass this Bill. That is all very well, but the Government ran the Act through the House against the will, not only of Members of this side, but of a great many on the other side of the House. They made a tremendous mess of it, and now they want us to try and get them out. That is their idea apparently of the way to work legislation. I do not think that is a fair way of looking at it. I am moving this Amendment because, in my opinion at all events, the Act is so bad and so complicated, the finance unsound, and unnecessarily expensive, and also because it operates most harshly on those who need help most, that I cannot

1165
see how it can be put anything like right by the sort of Amending Bill that we have now. I do not think that any small, hurried Amending Bill, hidden away, as this is, upstairs, and rushed through with the same idiotic haste as the Act itself was, can, at the fag-end of what is really a double Session, remove the main objections to the Act. The Bill, if it is to be an advantage, and not a curse, as it is now to the great mass of the people of this country, must either be drastically amended or have the compulsory Clauses cut out. It still leaves the Act invidious and unjust, and will not remove the increase of the cost of living which it appears to me the Act has caused, nor will it do away with the extra burden and worry of life to which it has exposed the working people as well as other people. It gives no hospital benefit. The hospitals have suffered very severely on account of the Act, and are likely to suffer more. I think provision for the hospitals is one of the things that certainly ought to have been done by this Bill. An agreement ought to have been come to with the doctors before the main Act was passed, and certainly there should be an agreement with them before this Bill is passed. The Bill will not really greatly help the working people by giving them 9d. for 4d. as the main Act was supposed to do. I understand from the Financial Secretary that now you give 11d. for 4d. Twopence has been added. I do not know how that is made out. I do not think that is the general opinion of the people of this country. How you will give 11d. for 4d. is altogether beyond my understanding.
Mr. MASTERMAN: Hear, hear.
Mr. HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman cheers that because he thinks my understanding is not sufficient to grasp it. Considering that, after all, the State only has the money it gets out of the people, it is a little, difficult to see how they can take only 4d. and give them back 11d. I confess I do not understand it. When the Bill was first introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the working people for the first year would pay £11,000,000. Therefore, during the first six months they paid £5,500,000, for which they got practically nothing. That is how the Chancellor of the Exchequer began giving the working people 11d. for 4d. I think it was a, very odd way of beginning. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer still believes in it, but I do not think anybody else does. I think that very few, if
1166
any, people get even 9d. for 4d. unless you make a calculation of the Marconi nature, and even then I do not know that they get it. This Bill does not to any considerable extent alter the bad effect of the Act. I cannot see how the Act can be amended unless ample time is given for the consideration of this Bill, and that cannot be given at this time of the Session. The Bill is to be rushed through, and it will only make confusion worse confounded. It will increase the already too large autocratic powers of officials, and especially the Commissioners. In a memorandum issued the other day they put down cottages, with the usual gardens attached, at a shilling a week, and they count Sunday as a full working day. Nothing could be much more absurd than that to anybody who knows anything of country affairs.
These are the lines upon which the Commissioners are going. You cannot expect the Amending Act to work smoothly. An hon. Gentleman on the other side showed how badly the Act had worked, because it was not properly worded on account of its having been rushed through the House to please the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A large number of members of friendly societies—I know some of them—are very much against the Insurance Act, and they believe that this Bill is not going to help them to any considerable extent. Members of friendly societies have already for the first six months paid about £2,700,000, for which they got neither sickness, disablement, nor maternity benefit. I think I am justified in saying it is a fact that sickness benefits have only been payable for about six months. The responsible leaders of friendly societies, now called approved societies, are very much alarmed at the great increase of malingering and of sickness pay. They know that if these things go on, they must lead to destruction. They also know that they mean destruction to the self-reliant spirit of their members. These are serious matters, and the Bill does nothing, so far as I can see, to avert calamity. Nor does it do anything to prevent the friendly societies from having to face the dangerous competition of life insurance companies. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that friendly societies are very much disturbed about the immense number of people the life insurance companies are getting, and the comparatively small number they are getting themselves. This Bill does not give the friendly societies back their former power of, at all events, having a fair

1167
chance of securing efficient medical treatment for their members. It leaves them still to a great extent unable to move hand or foot without the consent of the Commissioners with their autocratic powers. In my opinion this Bill does not alter the fact that under the Act the Government are running the dangerous risk of destroying the successful results of the long years of, patient voluntary self-help and self-sacrifice of the friendly societies, and they are doing it without the direct consent of those who may be injured I think that is entirely wrong. I do not think any Government, or any Committee of Parliament, have the right or are justified in doing this.
As I understand, the friendly societies were misinformed about this Insurance Bill. I do not say purposely. A very big man in the friendly societies, and a very strong Radical, told me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent out a rough draft of his Insurance Bill three years before it was brought out, and that rough draft was very much in favour of the friendly societies. When the Chancellor found out that he could not pass the Bill according to the rough draft which he had sent out, about six months before the real Bill came out he sent the real Bill to the heads of the friendly societies, but, as in the other case, under the pledge of secrecy, and so they could not do anything. That is not a fair way to treat the friendly societies. This Bill does not secure any minimum benefits. There is still no State guarantee that any person will get the benefits laid down in the Act, because the deficiency will still have to be made good by increased payments or else the benefits will be reduced. The most unhealthy, and therefore I think, as a rule, the poorest of the people, who are rejected by approved societies, will still be branded as Post Office contributors, and will still have extra difficulty in getting employment. For these people there is still no insurance, and they can only draw out the amount standing in their name, which is very considerably lessened by what the Government begins to take out at the beginning of the year. The Government still deduct about 13s. a year from a man's contribution—I am not quite sure of the exact amount. So with the poorest of the poor it still comes to this, not only are they not insured, but if a man is lucky enough to be employed for forty-nine weeks in one year he will not have enough even for three weeks' insurance
1168
benefit, instead of what he is supposed to have for six months. He will not have any at all for maternity or disablement benefit or for the 10s. a week which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would be provided for the families of an insured man who are sent to sanatoria, and if he has not got 13s. to his credit at the end of the year it is still doubtful whether he will get any benefit in the coming year. I know that the Commissioners have got some power if they like to use it.
It comes to this, that in the case of such an unfortunate man's death I think that rather more than half of any sum standing to his credit will be forfeited by the Government, and this is admittedly the poorest class of all. So, then, the position is that the poorest of the people will still get the least benefit and no insurance at all. Out of their scanty wages the Government still take by contribution the full amount under the Insurance Act and rob them of half of any sum they have to their credit. They are still compelled to pay more than they can afford while they are alive, and they are robbed by the Government when they are dead. It appears to me that this is the system which the radical plutocrats and the Labour Members, who are supposed to come here to look after the working people, desire to continue. I suppose that they will go back to their constituents and tell them all about it. Coming to the question of the doctors, they still have on their list of medicines only the cheaper ones for insured people. One doctor can have thousands of people on his panel, and when there are so many he cannot give them proper attention. The young people still have to pay under this Bill full contributions and they get about half-benefit. Many people still have to pay without getting benefit, because the confusion of the Act is so great, and this Bill will probably make it worse. This Bill does nothing at all to supply the first-class sanatorium hotel about which the Chancellor told us, and still thousands of consumptives insure for sanatorium benefit which they cannot receive because the sanatoria have not been built. They are extremely lucky if they get a bottle or two of cod-liver oil. As far as I can make out it is still the case under the Bill that if a man gets 10s. a week from his employer for an accident he gets nothing at all for sickness benefit, for which both he and his employer have paid.
Mr. WING: He does not pay for it.
Mr. HUNT: That is what is in the Bill. Iii a man gets 10s. a week under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act—
Mr. WING: That complaint has no bottom in it, because he is not charged under the Insurance Act for what is no benefit.
Mr. HUNT: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If a man gets seriously injured it may make him very sick indeed, and he is paying for insurance against sickness and so is his employer, and if he gets 10s. a week from his employer for an accident he gets nothing for sickness, for which both he and his employer pay. I think that is perfectly clear; at all events that is what is in the Bill; whether it has been altered by the Commissioner since I do not know. The insured person gets nothing for the first three days of sickness, which he certainly did under the old friendly society; at all events that is what the friendly societies' managers 'told me. The Bill does nothing to prevent or to equalise the extra taxation which the Act puts on British industry, in fact, it rather increases it. I do not know exactly what the increase was, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite does either, because the Government calculation of what the Act was going to cost had been so hopelessly out, that I do not think they know how much the cost will really be. The Old Age Pensions Act was supposed to cost £6,000,000; now it costs £13,000,000. Under the Insurance Act, I think I am right in saying that the figures have been greater than the Government expected, and they are certainly very much heavier than they were under the old friendly societies. It is the fact that this extra tax under the Bill is a special extra tax on British industries. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if a man in this country employs 200 men he has to pay an extra £130 a year, whilst the merchant who buys and sells goods, and employs 200 men abroad, practically does not pay anything, save perhaps £2 for his warehousemen, clerk, and boy. That is the effect of the Insurance Act, and this Bill does nothing whatever to put it right. It rather increases, though we do not know by how much, the other taxation of this country.
Then we get back to the agricultural community. I come from an agricultural
1170
county, and I must say we are not well treated under the Bill. The more healthy, I think admittedly more healthy agricultural labourer, with his wages of 2s. 8d. a day, under the Bill will still have to pay the same amount as the town mechanic who earns 10s. a day, and worst of all the surplus money from the healthy rural districts where the agricultural labourers live will go to make up the outlay in the towns and mining centres where sickness is far heavier, and where wages are very much more. I think that agricultural members have very good ground to complain that you have done nothing in this Bill to alter that very unjust provision. Although hon. Members opposite tell us that they are a democratic party, and that they believe in equal treatment for everybody, yet, despite all they say, this Bill still leaves the country divided into two classes. The poor and less fortunate are compelled to insure themselves; the rich and more fortunate are under no compulsion. The autocratic powers of the Commissioners under this Bill will be supreme, and the people will have no appeal; the inspectors may still continue to submit our working people to an imposition previously unknown in this country for hundreds of years; and it seems to me that the Act is so bad that this Bill is only meant to put off the necessary full consideration of a very ill-considered and a very disastrous Act for the people of this country. It is for these reasons that I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have very great pleasure in doing so, and I take the opportunity of putting before the House what, on several occasions, I have brought before it by way of questions during the last few months, though I have got very little in the way of an answer that carries the matter any further. The first question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, what is he going to say about the six months' card instead of the three months' card. When I first asked this question in the House of Commons, he told me that it was a matter which would be seen into and put right by the authorities who administer the Insurance Act. I put the same question to him yesterday, and he told me that it was a subject for debate to-day. Therefore I raise it as a matter of debate. I know perfectly well that there are argu-

1171
ments for and against a six months' card being issued to these people who wish to have it.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say that it was a matter for argument in Debate to-day. I said that the six months' card— I want it as much as he does—was a question on which could be produced some Amendment of the Bill upstairs, and then, I said, it would be a proper subject for debate, and I am not against it.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. STANIER: Perhaps I ought not to have used the word, "to-day," but it will be a proper subject for debate, and I accept what the right lion. Gentleman says. Another point to which I desire to call attention is the question of forms, in regard to which undoubtedly a great saving of labour might be effected. That is a most important question, for the enormous labour connected with these forms is breaking down the Act. The writing and issuing of the cards will be lessened. Writing is a heavy tax on many people connected with the friendly societies, and the issuing of the cards a great labour. There would also be less entries and less book-keeping, and, therefore, less returns. I contend it would be a great saving of expense and labour. For those reasons I ask that earnest consideration should be given to this matter. I deeply regret it is not in the Amending Bill. I know the change I suggest might make a certain amount of difficulties in calculating the arrears, and perhaps there would be some delay in dealing with the matters owing to the calculations that have to be made, but those could easily be got over by the presentation of the card at the time the benefit is asked for. Even if the card is lost, and that is another very serious thing, the benefits for are overwhelming against those few points that could be brought up against the proposal which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the proposal will be in an Amending Bill in the near future, if it cannot be drafted into the present Bill. The next point to which I wish to refer is one as to which I have already questioned the right hon. Gentleman and I feel deeply that it is not brought into this Bill, and that is the question of the marriage certificate. If there is maternity benefit required, you have to get a marriage certificate in order to get it. The cost of that is very considerable and makes a large hole in the thirty shillings benefit. In order to get that certificate
1172
you have to pay 3s. 7d. or 3s. 9d. I want to know why we could not have in this Bill an Amendment on the lines of the provision in the Old Age Pensions Act, where a birth certificate can be procured for sixpence. If such a provision were included in this Bill it would mean a saving of at least 3s. I put that question before the right hon. Gentleman and he told me the matter is receiving consideration. That was a long time ago, and I thought it was going to appear in this Bill. I think it is a flaw that it does not, and I earnestly ask that it shall be taken into serious consideration, and not the ordinary consideration which I generally get handed to me as an answer to any question I ask on the subject. I trust that it will be dealt with in this Bill if possible. Those are two very important questions. I am also going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to answer about the Lincoln verdict given to-day on a great question of insurance which was brought forward by an hon. Baronet on this side. It is a most serious question to the farmers of this country and to the community at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer. in this House and out of it, praised the six weeks' agricultural agreement between the farmer and the labourer, whereby the labourer was to have full wages for the first six weeks' sickness. But if the farmer has to pay twice over—that is, the full agricultural wage for those six weeks and also the premiums of the Act—should it not be the law that the farmer should be allowed to deduct the benefit of the Act? I think that the judge who said today that the labourer was to have the benefit and the wage was creating a state of affairs that was not equitable or fair to the farmer, who took over the responsibility for those six weeks, and also had to pay the premium. I understood that the benefits were promised by the Chancellor to be deducted, and if I am wrong perhaps I will be corrected by some hon. Member opposite. If he did not use absolutely those very words, he used words to that effect. I contend that the law ought to be altered in such a way now by this Bill that what the Chancellor really meant, and what he really promised, should be carried out by the judges who have to interpret the laws. Those are criticisms that I think I can fairly claim to be for the good of the Bill and of the cause that we all have at heart, and that will not cost the Exchequer any more money, and which should be put

1173
into an Amending Bill at the earliest possible moment, and ought to be in the Bill now before the House. For these and many other reasons, I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Surely the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanier) has given us very good reasons, not for supporting the Amendment, but for rejecting it. He has pointed out the urgency of certain matters, the interest and importance of which he has very forcibly put before the House, and yet, his mind being exercised by this urgency, he pleads with us to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. I shall prefer to believe that the hon. Member wished to deliver a very interesting speech, upon which I venture to congratulate him, and I hope that some of his desires will be fulfilled in the near future by reason of the fact that we shall refuse the Amendment which he has seconded. At any rate, in regard to some of his suggestions, I can cordially promise my support. For example, his suggestion with regard to supplying marriage certificates for 6d. is a very useful one, and precisely the kind of suggestion that we want to elicit at such a stage as this. In regard to the great majority of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite to-day, we have no cause for complaint. They have been moderate, and many of them very useful and informing. Certainly a characteristic jarring note was struck by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), bat we should be disappointed if he did not do something of that kind. We have learnt to expect it from him. He will, however, probably learn that his useful work in this House is not helped by the kind of language in which he indulged today. I might suggest to hon. Members opposite that "toujours Marconi" is not exactly good electoral warfare. I should like to deal with one or two general considerations which I think might well be considered on this occasion. The remarkable thing about the principal Act is the degree of success which it has achieved in so short a space of time. Contributions have been collected for about a year, and benefits paid for about six months. It is nothing short of remarkable that in such a short space of time a business, which my right hon. Friend truly described as gigantic, has been set on its feet.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) paid a very deserved tribute to the Insurance Commissioners for their
1174
devoted work. Perhaps my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) will forgive me if, even in his presence, I, for my part, pay tribute to his devotion to the same work, and the very great ability which he has displayed in connection therewith. This success has been achieved in spite of difficulties which ought never to have been created. In spite of the provocation given by the hon. Member for Colchester, I do not want to reply in the same vein. I may, however, remind hon. Members opposite that what they succeeded in doing was this: they created throughout the country an atmosphere of suspicion. That atmosphere has not yet been dissipated. I have had the misfortune to meet more than one member of the working classes who have been so impressed by what they have read in certain daily newspapers, that they unfortunately do not avail themselves of the advantages of the Act. The deposit contributors are few, and they would not be as many as they are if it had not been for that atmosphere of suspicion. According to the prophecy of the hon. Member for Colchester, in regard to which we may truly say that the wish was farther to the thought, at first there were to be 3,000,000 deposit contributors. Then, according to the official work issued by the National Conservative Union, the number was to be from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000. In fact, the number turns out to be only a few hundred thousand. Some of us honestly believed that the number would be larger than was estimated by the actuaries. We believed that, not because we wanted to believe it, but because we feared it. I am afraid that that cannot be said in regard to the hon. Member for Colchester.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is untrue.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If the hon. Member says that it is untrue, I, of course, accept his statement. I can only say that when the statement is repeated with glee on many occasions it naturally leads to that suspicion. If the hon. Member wishes to avoid that suspicion he will in future couch his remarks in a somewhat different tone from that adopted in some portions of his speech to-day. For example, there were his references to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend has been most generous to the hon. Member in this House. He has recognised the work which he has done. How has the hon. Member repaid that

1175
generosity? Looking at him sitting there, I wonder how he could do it. Let us see how the general principle of the Act has been accepted by the various classes of the community. These matters are of very great importance, because the acceptance of this Act by a great community like ours is, I hold, a very good augury for the future. The working classes, as a whole, have accepted the principle of compulsion.
Mr. WORTHNGTON-EVANS: How could they help it?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the principle of compulsion?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I asked how they could help it.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: There again the hon. Member lays himself open to the suspicion that, if he could, he would repeal the Act. Would he? If not, what did that interruption mean? I repeat that the principle of compulsion has been accepted with great common sense by the people of the country.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They could not help it.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech with as little interruption as I gave him, sorely tempted as I was to interrupt. The working men have accepted the principle. In some cases they have been inclined to doubt whether they were getting value for their money. That is an entirely different question. Who could wonder if they entertained such doubts, when we remember what has been done in the country. Take, for example, the South Manchester by-election. What were the people of South Manchester told by the successful candidate?
"It (the Act) gives an insured person only half the benefits that would be given for the same money by a well-managed friendly society."
It was that kind of statement, made not once but millions of times throughout the country, in newspapers and in leaflets, which led a certain proportion of the working men, not to reject the principle of compulsion, but to doubt whether that principle was being applied in such a manner as to give them the best possible value for their money. What is the case to-day? To-day we have hon. Members opposite getting up and, not so much com-
1176
plaining that the working man is not getting 9d. for 4d., as pointing out that he is getting too much. The benefits are too great. They are being too freely applied. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanier) referred to the question, which was also dealt with by an hon. Member on this side, of certain agricultural labourers getting not only their full wages but the benefit into the bargain. I think myself, if that speech was delivered, that 9d. for 4d.—
Mr. HUNT: Was not that a mistake in the drafting? Was it intended?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That belief was not entertained by the hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they raised a suspicion of something less than 9d. for 4d. It was not excused on the Christian ground that we had made a mistake. It was denounced as an intention on our part to deceive. I suggest that the hon. Member ought to change the character of his arguments in view of that.
Mr. CASSEL: The full wages are paid by the employer.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Still it is the result of the Act. Now I turn to the employer. Here, surely some considerations will arise which are of the very greatest interest. The employers have for the greater part accepted the Act as loyally as the workmen. Certainly a tribute is due to them on those grounds. The question arises here, and, I think, in the future will have to be considered more than it is considered now. We have a great complex civilisation in which we have the products of industry produced by certain captains of industry, and distributed and managed by them and by other commercial agents. The first remark about such a community as ours is the diversity of employments, and the extraordinary way in which the wealth of the community is distributed, not necessarily or chiefly amongst those who produce the wealth, whether they are manufacturers or employés. The point I particularly wish to put is this: Not a few manufacturers urge that, in view of such considerations as these, a larger share should be borne by those persons in the community who are either distributors or professional men who earn great incomes but who do not employ many people. Let us get clear views on this subject. Let us compare the Workmen's Compensation Act with sickness insurance. It is clear that in regard to accidents we have a calamity which

1177
occurs directly in connection with the manufacturer's business. There is absolutely a direct and complete connection between accidents and the business which bears the burden of supplying the compensation because of the accident. Take the case of sickness: Is the connection quite so clear? In the case of sickness, if the man falls ill who is in the employ of the manufacturer, it is perfectly true that the state of the man's health must in part depend upon his employment, but it does not necessarily or wholly depend upon it, and indeed the sickness may be due, and the cause entirely apart from anything that the manufacturer may do. It may, for example, be caused by the unhealthy house in which the man lives, and, which is no fault of the manufacturer. I do not say that this is conclusive. I am not asking the House to make up its mind finally upon this subject. I only do suggest that it is possible that we do not do complete justice to this question of contribution by the present division between the worker, his employer, and the taxpayer.
At present the taxpayer has to pay two-ninths of the benefit, but that, as I say, leaves out of account the fact that a not inconsiderable number of the wealthy people of this country do not employ many people and almost entirely escape the direct contribution towards sickness insurance, although they do themselves enjoy the products and make as much as the people who directly employ those by whom the articles are manufactured. I suggest that for consideration. These subjects will have to be very carefully considered in the future. Turn now to comparatively minor matters. It must be remembered that the existence of a certain number of complaints in regard to the working of sickness insurance is not to be deprecated. It is one of the happy results that follows from State management of any business. It is a curious thing to remember that in the old days before the passing of the National Insurance Act insurance grievances were unknown. Why is this difference? Something like 200,000 or 250,000 people were turned out of membership of friendly societies every year, forfeiting the contributions they have paid, and losing their membership. Whoever heard of it? Millions of these cases have occurred in the lifetime of those who are now listening to me. Did the public hear of them? Did the newspapers ever ventilate them? Were questions ever raised in Parliament about them? Not once ! I cannot call to mind one single instance in
1178
which a grievance of that kind was raised in this House. But notice what happened. You make insurance national. You remedy that particular grievance. It is no longer possible, at all events it is scarcely possible, for a man to be turned out of membership of an approved society. I think the hon. Member will go with me thus far that it is much less possible than it was. In spite of that, note what happens. Even the casual labourer in relation to this matter is much better off. We have remedied this particular grievance almost entirely. Still we hear of grievances. Again, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester referred, in passing, to what a horrible thing—that was the word he used—it was to contemplate that owing to excessive sickness insurance societies were broken up.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: What about the past working by the societies? Whoever heard of them? Consult the official records. What will you find. Year after year you will find little societies smashed up and going out of existence—
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he has given a State guarantee of the benefits now. That is why it is horrible.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Surely that is an explanation that will not serve. Is it not clear that in the past you have hundreds of thousands of men losing their membership of societies? You had hundreds and thousands of these men losing their membership because of the destruction of their societies. We are told that in the future it will be simply horrible if a society goes out of existence. Was it not horrible to contemplate in the past?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Hear, hear.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: We are told that it was a much more likely thing to occur. My point is this: Do not let us be deceived by the fact that we are getting exceptional complaints. It is a good thing to get these exceptional complaints. It is one of the virtues of a national system that its members complain a lot. Directly you get national management you get complaints arising which will not be put off. You get more efficiency than before, because complaints have to be attended to.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Wait till we nationalise the railways !
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: When we nationalise the railways we will improve the service by 50 per cent. Supposing you then reduce the rates and the freights to the rates, say in Germany, you would then begin to get complaints that the fares and freights were too high, even though they were lower than before. Pass to another point of minor importance. The hon. and learned member for Colchester spoke of our altering the principle of the Act by the first Clause in this Bill. Surely he has forgotten the nature of the Principal Act. The Principal Act itself does not merely supply from State funds two-ninths of the benefit. It does more than that. To name only one matter, it makes a contribution in the case of ill-paid labourers. That is quite apart from the question of the two-ninths, so that this Bill does not introduce any new principle. It has always been accepted that it was proper that we should make a contribution or contributions, as might be expedient, apart from the question of the two-ninths. There is no doubt in the future we shall continue to do so. I am sorry the hon. Member for Colchester, while falling foul of the manner in which we propose to spend the money, did not himself make any suggestion as to how he would spend it. I venture to ask him, in the course of his speech, did he oppose our expenditure affecting men and women over fifty, and he said "No." Why does he complain? Does he think he can have it both ways? I think he will find that this particular provision will be an exceedingly popular one, and a properly popular one. As to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is granting this benefit now, whereas he refused it two years ago, is it not always the experience when legislation of this kind is entering on its course? Do we blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) and think less of his original Workmen's Compensation Act because he then refused to reduce the risks which now appear obviously right to reduce, and which this House has altered? We do not seek to rob him of any credit because he left in that Act a provision that if a man fell a certain distance he should get compensation and if he fell a lesser distance he should not. Whenever these anomalies appear in an Act, Parliament subjects them, and properly subjects them, to criticism. They do
1180
not condemn the Act in which they are found nor the motives of the man who passed that Act in which they are found.
One word with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University about the medical profession. One seeks to speak of that profession with as much respect as possible, but it is true that Parliament has put millions into the pockets of the medical profession by passing this Act, and while it is true that the medical profession, which is one of the noblest, has a right to ask for all respect, we have a right to ask those of the medical profession to give us good value for their money and to serve the people well whom they are called upon to serve. I am sorry to point to some things that came to my notice which are not particularly creditable to some members of the medical profession. For instance, it does not please me to learn that in a little town the local doctors have raised their charge for attending lying-in patients from 12s. 6d. to £l at the present time. Is it necessary to do that because Parliament passed the National Insurance Act, which put millions into the pockets of the medical profession? The same criticism applies to the fact that they raised their charges to the old members of friendly societies. These things, I say, are not to the credit of the profession, and "they make it hard for many of us to regard that profession with all the honour in which we. used to hold it. As to the panel system, I listened to such criticism as fell from the hon. Member for Aberdeen University, and I found it difficult to remember that the panel system was invented by the medical profession and that Parliament went out of its way to alter the Act to please them and to put that into the Act.
I say this, further, that it must be a very great comfort and credit to everybody who took any part whatever in the passing of this measure into law to think of the nature of the opposition which obtains in this country at this hour because of the passing of the Act. It is perfectly true there are occasionally complaints, and that here and there a man has to wait for his doctor and that a woman is not attended to as quickly as might be. There is a failure perhaps in certain cases to give benefits where desired to give it. In spite of the defects which are exceptional, what is the broad fact at this moment? It is that the greater number of the working people in this country have now medical attendants at their disposal, where before they had no medical attendants. You hear of a case

1181
where a man has had to wait three days or four for his medical attendant, but these cases were constant in the old days and you never heard of them at all. Something like 2,500 women are getting maternity benefit every day under this Act. What an extraordinary thing that is to think of. Need we wonder there is scarcely an hon. Member opposite who in criticising this Act found it possible to use anything but moderate language? Need we wonder there have been few utterances from the other side at which any moderate minded man need cavil? The fact is the virtues of the Act are making their way, and there is not an hon. Member opposite who would to-day repeal it.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: The hon.
Member who has just sat down made a great point of the fact that in former days before the National Insurance Act was passed, we heard very little of complaints from members turned out of their friendly society and very little of friendly societies that had become bankrupt, and he seemed to think that because that was the case formerly so it should be the case now. Surely everybody must realise the whole condition of affairs is entirely altered, and that if in former days a man, of his own free will, entered into a contract with a friendly society, and was dissatisfied with it, he had but himself to blame for not choosing the proper friendly society, or for not making terms which suited him. Now we have quite a different state of things, and when people are compelled, whether they like it or not, to join a society, then naturally and rightly we hear complaints made in this House of cases which arise when compulsion is put upon people to enter into a contract. Like many other Members upon this side, I welcome the Introduction of this Bill which is going to amend the National Insurance Act, and I am only sorry it should be introduced so late in the Session, because the former Bill, which is at present an Act, was sacrificed to a very large extent to make room for the passing of Home Rule, and this Amending Bill has been sacrificed to give place in the earlier part of the Session to Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment. I do not think that even the promoters of this Bill can claim it is anything more than a bit of patchwork on a rather tattered and shattered garment that was their original work. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary complained that the National Insurance Act had been sub-
1182
jected to criticisms and questions almost unprecedented during the last eighteen months. I ask him now if it had not been for that criticism would this Bill have been introduced.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I really made no such complaint.
Mr. GWYNNE: I think when the right hon. Gentleman sees the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he made reference to the fact that the Commissioners had been subjected to this criticism.
Mr. MASTERMAN: That is quite a different thing. I made a defence of the Commissioners against the criticisms levelled against them.
Mr. GWYNNE: So far as I am concerned, at any rate, my criticisms during the last eighteen months have been directed against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary rather than against the Commissioners, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he suggest if it had not been for the questions and the criticisms in this House, and in the country, this Bill would be introduced at the present time in the form in which it is? Can he tell me that this Bill is the result of careful consideration and deliberation with the Commissioners in consultation with the Advisory Committees? Will he tell me that this Bill is all that the Commissioners want and that this is their last word as to the Amendments which should be made? I suggest that this Bill is much more attributable to the Leicester by-election and to the criticisms which have been made of the Act from this side of the House rather than the considered judgement of the Commissioners. Perhaps one of the most remarkable incidents in connection with this Bill is the entire want of explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the Treasury gave this afternoon. He did not attempt to deal with any single Clause in the Bill, and at least two or three of those Clauses, if not all of them, require some explanation. Clauses 7, 9, and 12 are going to give enormously extended powers to the Commissioners. I will read a portion of Clause 12, Sub-section (1), which, provides:—
"(1) Any Order or Special Order made under the principal Act may be revoked, varied, or amended by an Order or Special Order made in like manner as the original Order.

1183
(2) The time within which the powers of the Insurance Commissioners to make Orders under Section 78 of the principal Act may be exercised shall be extended to the 31st day of December, 1914."
This Clause extends unlimited power to the Commissioners, without a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the Debate on the principal Act he gave a definite undertaking to the hon. Member for Colchester that this unlimited power was only to be of a temporary nature, and would not be extended after the 1st January, 1914. My hon. Friend had protested against this wholesale power being given, and this is what appeared in the OFFICAL REPORT on the 10th November, 1911:—
"Mr. Lloyd George: If the Committee thinks 1915 is too long, I should be perfectly prepared to cut it down to, say, two years after the commencement of the Act. That would make it more temporary."
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester then pointed out that in the Irish Local Government Act there was a limit of time to the following 31st January, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:—
"I now suggest 1st January, 1914, if that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, we shall have to put off the commencement of the Act, and 1st January, 1913, will hardly be six months. I think we ought, at any rate, to have a full eighteen months, in order to get over these preliminary difficulties, and if it meets the view of hon. Members, I shall be very happy to make it 1st January, 1914."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th November. 1911, col. 2016, Vol. XXX.]
Yet, after that definite undertaking we do not have a word of explanation, and we are simply told that it is to be extended for another twelve months. That means that it takes out of the power of this House any chance of considering or amending the proposals which the Commissioners may make. I have on previous occasions asked to be informed how the Commissioners do their work—whether they keep any record, whether they put questions to the vote; whether minutes are kept and so forth— but I never got any satisfactory information. From time to time we are told in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the Commissioners think this, that or the other, but I want to know if any records are kept. Supposing the Commissioners make some drastic alterations under this Amending Bill, have we any right to discuss the question, and can we, as representing constituencies, say anything at all in the matter? What are we to say to our constituents who ask us to intervene? The
1184
Commissioners are not responsible to this House, and we can do nothing in the matter at all.
As Members of Parliament, we do not know what alterations or Amendments they are making, and to hand over such unlimited powers as these, without a word of explanation from the Financial Secretary is a most outrageous thing. I would like to know why the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be broken in this way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point, and tell us why he is extending this power. We have been told that the Act is working very smoothly. If so, why do we need to extend the powers of the Commissioners to remove difficulties if there are no difficulties existing? Again there is no mention in this Bill of any guarantee that the societies should be solvent, and this is a matter which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money). Now that the sick benefit claims are much larger than was originally expected, surely one would have thought that this would have been the occasion, when amending the Bill, to see whether the original promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be carried out, namely, that there should be some guarantee given to a man who is compelled to insure, that he will definitely get the money which he is expecting. The Chancellor of 1he Exchequer, in his book on "The People's Insurance," says:—
"My first principle is that every friendly society must be passed as sound before it can be guaranteed by the State. That is essential; otherwise the State might be in the position of defrauding citizens."
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand by that now? If that is so, how are we going, in the near future, to meet the difficulties which undoubtedly will have to be met if the sickness claims go on at the rate they have been doing lately. The Blue Book, which is supposed to give us a full account of the working of the Act, does not mention this point, and hon. Members opposite, in dealing with the point this afternoon, of increased claims for sickness, have tried to excuse it on the ground that for the first time people find themselves able to claim sickness benefit, and they are taking full advantage of it, and that in many cases they are women who have never had a chance of being insured before, and they are now claiming sickness benefit. I will take an instance from the report of the Boilermakers Society which appeared in the "Times." I imagine that most of the members of that society have

1185
been members for some time past, that there are no women members and that it is a well-known society. The report in the "Times" says:—
"In the July report of the Boilermakers Society, the general secretary records a growth of 60 per cent, in the sickness claims of this society, and there has been paid an amount of unemployment benefit which it is difficult to reconcile with the present state of the labour market."
Take Lancaster as another instance. There the secretary said:—
"The amount of sickness benefit is more than 50 per cent. higher than last year, and if the claims continue at the present rate he fears some of the club mortgages will have to be called in to meet the claims."
Here is another example from Rochdale:—
"As regards sickness benefit, all four lodges paid more than 100 per cent, more than they have been in the habit of doing."
I might quote one after another, all on the same lines. If we are going to have sickness benefit claims increased on these lines, I say that now is the time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in some Amendment to guarantee that insured persons will get the benefits for which they are forced to pay. I do not think that is at all an unreasonable demand to make. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a very serious accusation this afternoon against the doctors. He said that in some cases doctors have deliberately given certificates for sickness benefit in order to try and break down the Act. I asked him then, "Have you any definite cases on which to make that charge?" He said, "Yes," and he promised to make a statement before he sat down. He omitted to make that statement. I ask again now: Was he justified in making that remark? If so, how many doctors can he prove to have given certificates deliberately with the intention of trying to break down the Act?
Mr. MASTER MAN: I have evidence to believe that in certain cases certificates have been given by doctors to people who were not really entitled to certificates, with the object of breaking down the Act.
Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he has taken to stop that practice? Has he given the doctors any opportunity of putting their own side of the case, or is that merely an ex parte statement?
Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend has already promised to set up a Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
Mr. GWYNNE: According to the right hon. Gentleman, these doctors are en-
1186
gaged in a conspiracy. If that is the case, and I must assume he would not make a charge like that without some justification, these men who are engaged in this conspiracy are the doctors to whom people are compelled to go for advice in matters of life and death. Is that the class of men you are getting to work your Act? If you are going to compel men to insure and will not allow them to contract out, you should at least give them doctors in whom they can trust, but you cannot trust them yourselves, although you are compelling other people to go to them. People were deliberately promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would be allowed to choose their own doctors, but now the right hon. Gentleman says: "It is impossible for us to allow contracting out, because, if we do, we shall have all the healthy people going to one doctor and all the unhealthy people left for another doctor." If that is the case, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer promise definitely at the Tabernacle that people should have the choice of their own doctor as one of the great advantages of the Act. I, myself, know of case after case in which it was not a matter of sending all the healthy to one doctor, and all the unhealthy to another, but where people who have for years employed one doctor, applied to continue under that doctor, who did not happen to be on the panel, and the request was refused. I think that this Bill should have dealt with such cases. There has been an endeavour by several hon. Members opposite to try and misinterpret what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) said with regard to men and women over fifty. I heard exactly what he said, and there was no question of his grudging the money given to those people or of his wishing to have it paid over for the administration of the Act. He said that if you are willing to give full benefits to men over fifty—and with that we on this side entirely agree—it should not be done at the expense of the younger men who already are not getting adequate benefit.
It is very well to remove grievances and to be generous at other people's expense, but at any rate it should not be at the expense of these younger men who do not get what they should actuarially get under the Act. According to this arrangement they will get less still. I should have liked to have seen the Act amended by removing to a very large

1187
extent this compulsory insurance. At any rate, in cases where you cannot give a man a fair or decent insurance the compulsion should be removed, rather than try and further handicap the younger men. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply will give us some explanation or reason why these vast powers are to be handed over to the Commissioners, and that he will also give us some undertaking that we shall have some latitude in Committee to introduce Amendments, and not merely to introduce them, but also to discuss them and to put forward arguments which we think necessary. We do not want this Bill forced through without discussion, and everything left to the mercy of the Commissioners. However worthy a body they may be, they do not have the opportunity Members of Parliament have of meeting insured persons all over the country and of finding out what really arc the hardships which this Amending Bill should remedy.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I will endeavour to approach this question, not from what I have read in the newspapers, or from what I assume to be the position, or from what other people have told me, but from my actual experience of the working of the largest trade union in this country. Unfortunately, much of the difficulty of this Act has been brought about by the deliberate action of the doctors themselves. It will be remembered that we were bombarded with requests from the doctors to free them from the tyranny of the friendly societies. Every Member of this House received circulars to that effect. The friendly societies, on the other hand, asked us to continue the old arrangement, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, largely owing to pressure from Members of this House, gave way to the doctors and said, "Very well, we will accept your suggestion and free you from the tyranny of the friendly societies." What is the position to-day? The claim of the doctors is, "Give us the friendly societies." [Hon. Members: "No."] There can be no other claim, and I maintain that it is reverting to the position when the claim of the doctors was first conceded from this side. We are at this moment considering an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division (Mr. Hunt) to postpone any Amendment of the Act until a full inquiry has been held. The hon. Member himself admitted his entire ignorance of the Act, and, if he will allow
1188
me to say so, some of his references were as irrelevant as they were indecent. The remarkable thing is that the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment did so on the ground that he had three urgent points which require immediate consideration. His view of getting immediate consideration for three urgent matters was to defer altering the Act in any particular. Has the Act justified its existence? I venture to say that no one who has any knowledge of the trade union and friendly society movement could do other than say that many of the difficulties, if not all, were difficulties that we had every reason to believe experience would show. Anyone with any knowledge of trade union and friendly society work knows perfectly well that in some organisations every year we have special conferences for the purpose of altering our rules. Why? Because circumstances arise even in twelve months that necessitate a change of policy and a change of administration. If that is the experience of an organisation with 50,000 or 100,000 members, surely we are justified in saying that in a great Act of this kind, embracing, as it does, millions of members, we were justified in assuming that some alteration would be necessary after an experience of six or twelve months !
10.0 P.M.
Like many hon. Members opposite, I do not think that this Amending Bill goes far enough. My own view is that, instead of the limited Committee as outlined by the Secretary to the Treasury, there should be a full Committee of Inquiry to consider the Act in every possible aspect. Hon. Members opposite agree with me in that, and I should have thought that that was something they could themselves press on the Government. But recognising that a Committee of Inquiry is necessary where we shall be able to get information, that in itself should not prevent us removing some of the admitted grievances of which advantage has been taken in the country from time to time. It is quite true that the Act has not done all that some of us anticipated. I have never hesitated, even amongst a hostile crowd, to defend the Act, not because I believe it is popular—I do not think it will be popular for a long time —but because I believe that in the main it will be of great value to the working classes of this country, and because I believe that having once compulsorily insured everyone, having once given an opportunity to every man to say that in case of sickness some provision is made for him, as time goes on people will begin to appreciate those facts and they will find it

1189
will be to the advantage not of one aide or one party, but of the community as a whole. I would suggest that we are making too much of the question, of the high sickness rate. I have not the Boilermakers' Report to quote in reply to the hon. Gentleman, but he may take it that there is a solid explanation of the particular point he raised. I have no hesitation in saying that as a result of our experience in a society of a hundred thousand members, all picked lives, the same lives as hitherto were in membership and not compulsorily insured, I have no hesitation in saying that our sickness for the last six months is nearly 2 per cent, leas than at the corresponding period of last year. And here, in my opinion, is the real answer to the increasing sickness. Everyone agreed that the real danger was the deposit contributor. There were various estimates given, but surely none of us deplores the fact that the deposit contributor has got into the different approved society, and consequently must of necessity tend to this increase in the sickness rate. Does not that on the other hand help the Act, inasmuch as it equalises the liability over all instead of allowing some society to have picked lives as against others? Besides, if it is a liability to the approved society, as it is, I admit, are we not justified in saying that if the approved society are taking a liability that it was contemplated the Government would have to deal with in three years' time, is their task not simplified by toeing able to deal with these people through the approved societies themselves? I do not agree that the Act has encouraged malingering. It may be perfectly true some folks malinger, but experience shows that working men themselves are the best check of that, and if I may be allowed to suggest, instead of having your State official to check it, the best check would be to allow more money for administration expenses, so that the friendly societies and the approved societies can have more sick visitors from amongst their own class. That, in my opinion, would be a real check for dealing with this particular question. I go further, and I say that the real explanation of the malingering is this: Hitherto, when a man was not compulsorily insured, when he had nothing coming in in cases of sickness, he went back to work before he was really fit. Are we not justified in assuming if he now stops on the club longer because he has something coming in that that in five or ten years' time will
1190
reduce the sickness liability rather than increase it? While at the moment we are, I admit, paying the penalty, I believe it is only temporary, and in the end it will be beneficial for all concerned.
I want to make one observation on the Amending Bill. It will be readily admitted that that Bill touches the most burning question. Everyone will agree as to the hardship to aged people. Everyone will agree that by the action of the doctors themselves the old folk who have been thrifty for thirty or forty years are now penalised to the tune of 4s. The Government have rightly recognised that by making a contribution of 2s. 6d., and the fact of the man being exempt from his employer's contribution when he is out of work is a benefit which will be readily appreciated. But I want the Government to go further in this Bill. I want them to abolish the four Commissioners. I have no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners have done their work well. Everything that can possibly be said in their favour ought to be said. But I have felt that their inexperience has caused them to be an absolute failure by reason of the duplication of work and the throwing unnecessary details on the approved societies. I want working men to be paid for their loss of time whilst serving on the committee. You have no right to say to these people that they shall have representation unless you make some provision for it. You can only make provision for them by paying them for their loss of time. These are only a few of the many points I might have developed. While feeling that many other Amendments ought to be introduced, we will co-operate with all sections of the House in regard to this Bill, and because we are specially interested in our own class we believe that this Amending Bill is a step in the right direction, and that eventually we shall be able to fashion an Act of Parliament which many people, instead of condemning the "Joy-day" as it is now condemned, will be able to say was an Act of Parliament which brought immeasurable benefit to the working classes of this country.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down promised us at the beginning of his speech that he would make a speech based upon his own experience, and not upon what he had gathered from newspapers or other sources. I think he has, more or less, fulfilled his promise. Although I do not agree with much of his phraseology, I do agree, as I shall show

1191
later on, with the main practical proposal he made, and I also agree thoroughly with his view as to the advisability of Home Rule as it applies to his own class and his own trade, and with his desire to get rid of the four Commissions who are now employed. The simple fact that we to-day, within a year of the bringing into operation of this Act, are engaged in a discussion of the Bill now before us, is in itself the best comment upon the way in which this Act was forced through the House of Commons, and is also the best justification for the criticisms which at that time we directed against the methods of the Government, and also the best justification for the attempt we made on the Third Reading—an attempt which failed, unfortunately, as I think, both for the Government and for the country—to get this Bill properly considered in the way in which it needed it more than any other measure that could be brought before the House of Commons. I venture to say that no measure of anything like the same importance was ever treated in the same way.
The Bill we are considering to-night is admitted to be—it was almost admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier—simply a tinkering with this question; a tinkering which, in my belief, can never really deal with the problems with which the Government is now faced. Though this Bill is merely a perfunctory attempt to deal with them, it is, in one sense, a serious measure. It is serious from the point of view of the amount of money involved. As the House knows, this Bill means an additional expenditure partly drawn from the State and partly imposed upon the Insurance Fund, of something like £1,000,000 a year. I ask the House to consider for a moment the way in which the burden on the State is growing under this Act. When the Act went through we were told that the expenses for the current year would be something like £4,000,000. When this Amending Act is brought into operation, as I suppose it will be, the expenditure will have increased to £7,000,000. Where is this going to end? It is quite evident that the tinkering which is going to be done to-day is going to continue. What is more, this Bill itself contains provisions which have the express object of making such tinkering easy. As my hon. Friend pointed out this afternoon, the Government have without any explanation, given power to the Commissioners until the end
1192
of next year, which practically means that they can act as a legislative assembly and alter the Act in any way they please.
An hon. Friend of mine below the Gangway, a few moments ago, asked the Government to give an explanation of this. I do not think we need any explanation. We have had sufficient evidence as to what are the ideas of this Government as to what representative institutions should be, and what the proper function of the House of Commons ought to be, to know that this is their idea of how legislation ought to be carried out. It is not only by legislation that they may tinker with it. There is a provision in this Bill which enables the Government to spend any money they please under the Act, without having an Act of Parliament going through this House at all. All they have to do is to do now in a legal way what the Chancellor did last year illegally, and what was condemned by the Prime Minister. They are simply going to take power to spend any amount of money they please, which means that another step is being taken in the direction of removing from the House of Commons control over even finance and placing it instead in the hands of the Government of the day. It is perfectly true that the House would have power to refuse a Supplementary Estimate, or whatever it may be, but it will only have that power after the Government of the day come under obligations to spend the money, and anyone who knows anything about the House of Commons knows that such control would be very different from that involved in the passing of a Bill through the House of Commons in the ordinary way.
I said that this Bill meant an annual expenditure of something like £1,000,000. I think the total amount is £825,000. What evidence have we, and what reason is there to believe that this Amending Bill has been introduced with due regard to all the circumstances of the Act, and that it is the best way, taking the whole of the facts into consideration, in which this money can be spent? We know the methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know the way in which he carried this Act through the House of Commons. We know that all the negotiations, whatever they were, took place outside, and that all the House of Commons had to do was to register decisions which had been made elsewhere. We know that all his ingenuity, all his driving power, and all his influence over his colleagues in the

1193
Government and in the House were directed with this one object—to get the Bill, any Bill, on to the Statute Book, and to leave the consequences to take care of themselves. The consequences are taking care of themselves. Is there not reason to fear that precisely the same method is being adopted now; that what they are doing is simply stopping here a leak and there a leak, not after examination of the whole subject, but simply to get over or dodge the difficulties which, for the moment, are facing them most acutely. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said, that there has been an inquiry before this Bill was introduced, but I am afraid it has been a rather superficial inquiry. At all events, we know it was undertaken by Gentlemen who, in every speech they have made in this House—and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was no exception—while the Act was going through, and since, have spoken as if the Act, as it stood, was as near perfection as anything human could be, and as if any opposition to the Act was simply that of men with misguided minds who did not know what was good for them so well, perhaps, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, probably, will not have to suffer or enjoy the privileges of the Act.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) made an appeal to us this afternoon to treat this question as non-party. That is a reasonable appeal, but he justified it on what seems to me strange ground. He held up himself as an example of how the subject could be treated on non-party grounds. I have had the pleasure of listening to many speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject and I listened to them with all the more impartiality because I did not myself suffer from the very active tongue which he exercised on those occasions. Judging by those speeches, there is no Member in the House who has less right to ask that we should put aside party considerations, and who is less entitled to pose as an administrative officer—I think that is what he called himself—without any party spirit unless it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. We know the rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that at the end of the summer Session, when this Bill was going through, he gave us on these benches, as well as the rest of the House, a certificate of good character. He told us we had been doing our best to help him in framing this great measure, and then before there was any opportunity of our exhibiting the latent
1194
vices which the right hon. Gentleman, knew we possessed—
An HON. MEMBER: By-elections.
Mr. BONAR LAW: There had been by-elections before that and I may remind the hon. Member who made that interruption that the first use of the Insurance Act at a by-election was made by the party opposite at Hull where the candidate, after pointing to the great merits of the measure, urged all voters to vote for the Liberal party. Before we had any opportunity of showing those vices the right hon. Gentleman abandoned that other method which he sometimes adopts, and which his colleague adopted this afternoon and showed that he meant to carry through the Bill by the full and extreme exercise not only of party discipline and the whole party spirit, but what is more by party methods —and that is far stronger than the ordinary party spirit—which are peculiar to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not think they have any claim, either of these right hon. Gentlemen, to ask us to put party entirely out of the question, but I admit this, that it is part of our duty to consider not merely the attitude of our political opponents, but what is best for the country, and I say at once that if I believed it were possible to make this Act a workable measure and acceptable to the people of this country by such tinkering as is going to be imposed upon it to-day I should be glad to see the Act worked in that way. But I have no such belief. I noticed that when one of my hon. Friends was speaking and when he quoted the Joy-day speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he spoke of the opposition to the Insurance Act as resulting from misrepresentations—in the enthusiasm of the moment I think he used a stronger word — of his political opponents, there were cheers on those benches. That was reasonable once. It is surely futile now. It was reasonable to make that claim, as they constantly did, before the Act came into operation, but now it has been in force for six months for the whole of it and longer for part of it—quite long enough to see exactly how it works, and to enable people to get the benefits, such as they are, which come from it. What is more, while the Act was going through, they constantly told us that only a few months would be needed after the Act came into operation to show what a blessing it was and that the moment that had happened all of us who had spoken disrespectfully of the Act would be anxious

1195
to hide our diminished heads and conceal the action which we had taken in regard to it.
Hon. Members may flatter themselves, as the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) did, that time is all that is needed to recommend this Act to the people of the country. I do not believe it. From all the information I can gather—and I have tried to gather it, and I fancy that most hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in real touch with the constituencies will agree with me—the Act is not getting more popular the longer it is in operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my belief. The hostility towards it is just as strong as it was, and it is, quite unlike anything that has ever happened with regard to any measure, not becoming more possible to accept it as final. In my belief, the experience we have already had shows clearly that the defects of the Act are fundamental, and cannot be remedied by any such tinkering as is proposed to be adopted in this Bill. I think that the Government ought at last to recognise that fact, that they ought at last to realise that the joy days are always going to be in the distant future, and that the only way in which they can make the Act acceptable is by a thorough reconsideration of it, and by giving to it that consideration which ought to have been given to it before it became an Act at all. I said that with the main proposal of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House I agree. What was that proposal? He said there ought to be an inquiry into the whole Act. That is exactly what I say the Government ought to have now. It is easy enough for them to say that it has only been six months in operation, but surely it is evident to anybody that these six months is a long enough period to prove that there is something radically wrong, or the hostility would not be so continuous and so determined as it is now. I say what is wanted is a real inquiry by people who are not convinced in advance that everything is nearly as perfect as it can be made. Is there ground for such an inquiry even now? I think the main ground is that to which I have already referred, namely, the continued hostility to the measure in the country. There is no need for questioning that. Members of the Government, when discussing other subjects, such as the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill and the
1196
Home Rule Bill, always point to the Insurance Act as the cause of their unpopularity in the country. But without going into many details, I should like to point to two other considerations which were put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). The first is with reference to the number of people who pay the tax of the Insurance Act, and who from one cause or another do not, in fact, get any of the benefits.
We have not been able to find out from the Government how large that class is, but we have sufficient information to show that it is a large class. In the first place, we know from the Government that one-third of the deposit contributors in Ireland cannot be identified. Although they pay the taxes they can get no benefit from the Act. We know that 10 per cent, of the deposit contributors are in the same position in England. We know, also, that there must be a large number of members of friendly societies who, but for the special provision for the first year of the Act, would be in precisely the same position. We have asked for the number, and the Government have not been able to give it. We know that that also applies largely to out-workers. As pointed out this afternoon, the Government have made three different attempts to deal with it, and the difficulty remains almost as great as when they first began. The hon. Member for Colchester gave an instance which, he tells me, is not exceptional, of one factory where three-fifths of the women employed in it are taxed under this Bill and cannot by any possibility get any benefit. Everyone must agree that if there is any large class in the community which for whatever reason pays the tax under the Bill and does not get any benefit from it, that is a class which ought not to be compulsorily insured, and which by some means ought to be removed out of the hardships to which it is now subjected. I will not delay the right hon. Gentleman any longer. It is more serious for him than it is for me. The only other question to which I will refer is the position of the friendly societies. It is perfectly evident from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, though he tried to diminish the seriousness of the position, that he admitted that the whole financial basis of the great friendly societies is threatened by the Act as it is being worked. There is not the smallest doubt that the increased sickness represents a claim which, if it

1197
goes on at anything like the present rate, will break down and destroy the financial stability of these great societies.
It may be said as the right hon. Gentleman said, that six months is not long enough to prove that. As a rule that would be true, but unless the right hon. Gentleman gives some reason for the belief that the six months do not correspond to what we may expect in the future, these six months are alarming enough to make us feel that the whole financial stability is in danger. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon by some quotation, partly from a Blue Book and partly from some other sources, tried to minimise the effect of these figures but did not succeed. What is more that Report ought to have contained information on the subject. Since it does not contain it I think it is in itself the best proof of how unsatisfactory the position is in this respect. There is no use tinkering with the Act when the whole fabric not only of the Act but of the friendly societies is in danger, and that reason alone would be sufficient to make it absolutely necessary that there should be now an inquiry into the working of this Act. As I said, all that I wanted to say has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who sat down last. It is my belief, however unpleasant it may be to the Government, that it is absolutely necessary that there should be now an inquiry, an examination by a competent body and by an impartial body, not only into the working of the Act but into the whole system of the Act and the principles on which the Act is based. I am convinced of this that sooner or later such an. inquiry will be necessary, and that until such an examination has been made it will be impossible for anyone properly to attempt to make the radical Amendments which are necessary if this Act is to be workable, and if—and that is a contingency which the House must never overlook—it is to be acceptable to the people of this country. Such an inquiry must be made and will be made sooner or later, and in my belief it would be in the interest of the Government themselves to make it now, and I am sure that it would be in the interests of the people of this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, taken in conjunction with the speech delivered from the Front Bench earlier in the course of the evening, con-
1198
stitute a very fair indication of the attitude of the Opposition towards the Insurance Act. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) for some time occupied his speech by pointing out that all the things which are in this Bill are things that he and his Friends had pressed for two years ago. It is true they cost money, but they were pressed for notwithstanding that fact. He quoted what the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had done in that respect. That was his attitude towards the Insurance Act, and all those boons which were pressed for. Now comes the Leader of the Opposition, and what does he say? "Those boons will cost £800,000, and the thing is growing." That is his attitude towards the taxpayer; and that his the attitude of the Opposition throughout the whole of the criticism of the Insurance Act. It is one attitude towards the worker, it is a different attitude towards the employer, and it is another attitude towards the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the Insurance Act, and the burden on the State that is constantly growing, and which is the result of the action of the Government." But that is not the attitude in the country. Here I have a document which was circulated in support of a Parliamentary candidate on the other side at Newmarket. This is the party which has been complaining that the burdens on the State are constantly growing. The first complaint in this document is that those who were under twenty-one could not receive full benefit; the second complaint is that there are no death benefits; the third, that there is no sickness benefit the first three days; the fourth, that there is no medical benefit for the wives and children of the workers; the fifth, that they do not get disablement benefit at once; the next, that they do not get compensation as well as sick pay; and the last, that those over seventy ought to get full benefit. I had it worked out. Full benefit under twenty-one would be an increased burden on the State of £270,000 a year; the next is three days' sick pay, which would add to the burden on the State by £750,000; death benefits would add £1,500,000, at the most moderate computation, per annum; sick pay, in addition to compensation, would amount to £1,250,000; the provision for benefits over seventy would cost £2,000,000 a year; and the medical benefit for families as well as insured persons, at least £6,000,000.The extra cost of the administration would

1199
be another £1,500,000 a year, and the bill from Newmarket for the State is thirteen millions a year.
Yet they go to the taxpayer, who does not happen to be an insured person, and they say to him, "Look at this Bill; it is constantly increasing the burdens." I think they really ought to make up their minds which of those two attitudes they adopt. It is thoroughly characteristic of the whole of their attitude. First of all, they pressed for the whole of these things. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said the whole of these things are things they asked for two years ago. Seeing that they supported every single Amendment involving the expenditure of money, and that there was no Amendment which at one time or another they did not support, therefore they always say, "It is something we supported two years ago." The right hon. Gentleman says that we should hold a new inquiry. Where is he now on this subject? Months ago he was for abolition, and a few months later his position was rather obscure and undefinable, and he very frankly stated it:—
"I feel also in regard to the Insurance Act that the action our party should take must depend on the time the election lakes place. It would be impossibly to formulate clearly now what our action would be later on. I shall be very glad to receive a deputation."
Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not remember that particular letter. Of course, I have had many letters of the same kind. What I always said is that we cannot say what our position will be in the future until we have had the experience which will come to us before a General Election—that is all.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very odd that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make out the case which I am making out that you must wait for experience. What is his attitude now? This is the third stage. He says now "We will not abolish, we will inquire, we will have a Commission." I think it is very reasonable to say they will inquire and wait for experience and there I am absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman that you must have experience before you can make up your mind with regard to this Act. Therefore, I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at a decision—I will not say a stable one, but, at any rate, for the moment it is one, which is capable of some sort of rational defence and explanation. But, the right hon. Gentleman says, let us have an inquiry. I agree, but you
1200
are not to have an inquiry into an Act of Parliament which has only been in operation partially for six months, and there is fully one-half of the Act which has not come into operation yet, and that is the invalidity benefit. The right hon. Gentleman said he had made inquiries, and that the Act was just as unpopular as it was a year or two ago. That is not the case. If you propose any Act in this country which involves a contribution from every workman of so much per week that is not certainly a way at once to win absolute popularity, and no man in his senses ever dreamt that it would immediately be popular. The hon. Baronet opposite is a very shrewd electioneerer, and I know something about electioneering too, and I can assure him I am not so simple as to believe that the way to immediately win the working classes of this country is to propose something which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week upon them—[HON. MEMBERS: "For ninepence."]—allow me to finish, which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week—[HON MEMBERS: "For ninepence."] We listened with perfect civility to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think I am entitled to the same civility in reply—which puts a compulsory levy of fourpence per week when the benefits—I was corning to the ninepence, must necessarily be postponed. Of course no man who knows anything about electioneering thinks it would be popular. At the same time it would be a bad thing for this country if the Government were not prepared to face even temporary unpopularity to establish a principle which they think is a sound one—I say more than that, a principle which hon. Gentlemen opposite know in their own hearts is a sound one. They themselves, when the Old Age Pensions Act was passing through the House of Commons, never ceased to say, "This, is not the way to deal with it. You ought to have a contributory measure." The moment we adopted the contributory principle, they accepted it at first, but when they saw there was a certain measure of unpopularity attached to an imposition of this character they swung round and made the best they could of it from an electioneering point of view. I say that that is teaching a dangerous lesson to the democracy. That unpopularity, such as it was, is rapidly disappearing. The Act has been only six months in operation. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to find out what happened in Germany. I

1201
had the privilege of talking with the late German Ambassador on the question of insurance in Germany. He was engaged in the work of insurance during the first year of the German Act; I am not sure that he was not at the head of the office. He told me that during the first few years it was quite unpopular in Germany. But now you will not get a political party of any complexion or any group of men of any class to get up and say even what the right hon. Gentleman says, that perhaps when an election arrives they may oppose it. No one would suggest opposing it at the present moment. The same thing will apply here. I have not the faintest doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman wants an inquiry. An inquiry into the whole subject now would be an inquiry at a time when experience is being built up, when you have not got over even the whole of your preliminary difficulties. He says that excessive sickness is a peril. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) has already stated on behalf of the Government that he is quite prepared to have an examination into the question of excessive sickness. That is, the only subject which is pressing as far as inquiry is concerned. The time will arrive when you ought to have an inquiry into the whole subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have treated the Act as if it were a counsel of perfection. Never. I could quote several passages from speeches which I have delivered at this box when dealing with the measure, in which I have repeatedly said that there was not the faintest doubt it would require some amendment from time to time. What I said was that it was almost impossible to predict at that moment on what point amendment would be required. Only experience will teach us—and these are the words of the Leader of the Opposition—at what point amendment is urgently necessary. In Germany they have already had a dozen Amending Acts, and I have no doubt we shall have Amending Acts here. This will not be the last. I have never pretended that it would be. You are dealing with one of the most complex problems that any Ministry, or any Parliament, could be confronted with. To say that anybody in the House of Commons, any Ministry, or friendly society could turn out a Bill that would be perfect in every detail would be a piece of arrogance that I do not believe anybody in the House of Commons would be capable of. Of course, you will.
1202
require Amendments from time to time. I cannot in the time at my disposal deal with all the points raised, but there are one or two I should like to refer to. There was that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. Well, Ireland has exactly the same interest in the Act as has any other part of the United Kingdom. She has got the same share except the small contribution towards medical benefit. So far as the rest is concerned she has got exactly the same as anybody else. As to the point of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the powers of the Commissioners are limited. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the history of the Clause. It was taken bodily from a Conservative Act of Parliament. Yet he spoke of it as a piece of Radical despotism, and rascality, invented for the first time by this Government. We took it from an Unionist Act of Parliament, a remedial measure, applicable to Ireland.
Mr. GWYNNE: The Irish Act does not refer to friendly societies at all? It was a local government Act and did not give unlimited powers over private interests.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the simple reason that the Clause was in an Act dealing with local government. Our Act deals with friendly societies. That is the difference. The other point I should like to refer to is that of the four Commissioners. The House will remember perfectly well that as the Act was originally drafted, there was only one Commissioner. Pressure came—
An HON. MEMBER:From Ireland !
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: From various parts of the United Kingdom to set up separate Commissions. I resisted that pressure for some time. But my recollection is that that pressure was very great.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From Ireland !
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The pressure from Scotland was even greater than from. Ireland.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There was no pressure in this House?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The pressure inside this House and outside was very considerable. Although at that time I had considerable misgiving about splitting up the Commission, I came to the conclusion that Scotsmen knew their business better than I did. Speaking now after the

1203
experience we have had, it has been an enormous help and assistance to the administration of the Act to have had these four separate Commissions dealing with their respective countries. It would have been almost impossible to have managed the whole of the affairs of the four countries from Whitehall.
Mr. J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman state that on the authority or statement of any single official that has conducted an approved society?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, certainly. The hon. Gentleman does not know what the influence of the Scottish societies has been. I should be very much surprised if the hon. Gentleman got any Scottish approved society to share his view. I fully realise the difficulty of English trade unions with branches in Scotland, but, after all, the vast majority of members of approved societies in Scotland and Ireland are members of approved societies which are Scottish or Irish in their origin and management. But I think he will find that the great majority of these societies are in favour of the continuance of the present system. Up to the present we only heard criticisms of those against it, but I am certain of this, that if any one proposed to abolish these four separate Commissions, he would find resistance in these countries he could hardly conceive. The system of separate Commissioners has worked uncommonly well, and I say that frankly as one who was afraid it would not work well, and I do not think it would be possible to run the Insurance Act in these countries from Whitehall, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friends will reconsider their view with regard to that. I think the difficulties they experience are difficulties that ought to be met. They are very largely bookkeeping difficulties, and having gone into the matter, I do not believe they are insuperable by any means. They are purely book-keeping difficulties of a character which I think can be removed. It would not be necessary to have legislation, but if it is necessary to have an Amendment in order to facilitate the working of English societies with branches in England, Scotland, and Wales, we shall accept any Amendment of that character, but we cannot go the length of assenting to the proposition that we should do away with the separate Commissions, because I think it would be resented very strongly.
Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I raised about the farmers and the agricultural labourers?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I could not be expected to deal with that without having a little more time to acquaint myself with the facts. I promise to look into the matter. It deals with a Clause which was inserted, I think, very largely at the instance of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. I do not say it met with his views, but it was very largely owing to the agitation he engineered. If the Clause is defective it should be set right, but I cannot say more now than that I will look into the matter. I could not give an answer straight away, and I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to say more now. On the face of it it looks to be a matter that requires some amendment, but, as I say, I must look into it before I answer. Let me say this, in conclusion. We have had a good many taunts levelled at us in reference to this Act at every stage. It is undoubtedly an Act of enormous difficulty. You are dealing with 14,000,000 of workpeople of every class and grade that you can conceive, because the complexity of our industry is inexhaustible. Whenever we have had a difficulty we always had a sort of taunt from the other side. "Look at the trouble you are causing," they said. They asked, "Where are the doctors?" months before the time came for medical benefits. They asked, "How are you going to provide the doctors?" We have 15,000 now.
An HON.MEMBER: Eighteen thousand.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Eighteen thousand doctors. They said, "Where are your sanatoriums?" We have 10,000 insured persons in sanatoriums now. Before the Act you had only 2,000 beds in the whole country for every class of consumptives. Now you have 10,000 persons in sanatoriums. In Germany fifteen years after the Act came into operation they had only about 4,000 people in sanatoria, and it was I think the fourth year after they began building sanatoria that they had anything like 10,000. Here, within a year, we have 10,000 consumptives in institutions. It was said people would not pay and that hundreds of thousands would resist, but there are very few resisters in the country at the present moment. The hon. Member for Colchester said there would be 3,000,000 Post Office

1205
contributors, and he asserted that with the same dramatic emphasis as he does everything else. He was wrong. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) also said that there would be 3,000,000 Post Office contributors, but the actual figure is 500,000. And, finally, we had the statement on high authority that the Act would never come into operation. Now 14,000,000 people are paying readily their contributions, 500,000 are receiving medical benefit every week, 270,000 are receiving sick pay every week, and all this under the Act that was never going to come into operation because there were so many difficulties in the way. I never believed that the Act would be popular in six months, but after we have had another year's experience of this Act the right hon. Gentleman, who is now only in the inquiry stage, will then be one of those who, when he faces the electors, will not then be for abolishing the Act, or so much for inquiring, but he will take it to be an Act for further extending, improving, and working.
Mr. DENNISS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he fully expected this Act would be unpopular and that he would be a martyr in the cause of progress. If that were the case, why was it he brought in a Bill without any mandate from the people? Nobody had asked for the Bill. It was, entirely off his own bat as an electioneering move. He says that he thought it would not be popular. Why did he offer the electorate 9d. for 4d.? Did not he think that would be popular? Did he not on 15th July last offer them first-class hotels for sanatoria? Did not he think that would be popular?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 160.

Division No. 202.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Clough, William

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clynes, John R.

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

Adamson, William

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hackett, John

Agnew, Sir George William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hancock, John George

Alden, Percy

Cotton, William Francis

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardie, J. Keir

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Crooks, William

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Armitage, Robert

Crumley, Patrick

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Arnold, Sydney

Cullinan, John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Dawes, James Arthur

Hayward, Evan

Barnes, George N.

Delany, William

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Devlin, Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barton, William

Dickinson, W. H.

Henry, Sir Charles

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Donelan, Captain A.

Hewart, Gordon

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Doris, William

Higham, John Sharp

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Duffy, William J.

Hinds, John

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hodge, John

Bentham, George Jackson

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Hogge, James Myles

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Holt, Richard Durning

Boland, John Pius

Elverston, Sir Harold

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Hudson, Walter

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Falconer, James

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Brunner, John F. L.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Bryce, John Annan

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

John, Edward Thomas

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Field, William

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fitzgibbon, John

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Jowett, Frederick William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Joyce, Michael

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Keating, Matthew

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Glanville, Harold James

Kellaway, Frederick George

Chancellor, Henry George

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Kelly, Edward

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goldstone, Frank

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Kilbride, Denis

Clancy, John Joseph

Greig, Colonel J. W.

King, Joseph

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

O'Grady, James

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

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

O'Malley, William

Sheehy, David

Lardner, James C. R.

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

O'Shee, James John

Snowden, Philip

Levy, Sir Maurice

Outhwaite, R. L.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Lundon, Thomas

Parry, Thomas H.

Sutherland, John E.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sutton, John E.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

McGhee, Richard

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radciiffe)

Maclean, Donald

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Tennant, Harold John

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, J. H.

Macpherson, James Ian

Pollard, Sir George H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Toulmin, Sir George

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Manfield, Harry

Pringle, William M. R.

Verney, Sir Harry

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Radford, George Heynes

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Meagher, Michael

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wardle, George J.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Reddy, Michael

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Middlebrook, William

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Millar, James Duncan

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Webb, H.

Molloy, Michael

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Mooney, John J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Morgan, George Hay

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

Morison, Hector

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Muldoon, John

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Munro, Robert

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

Robinson, Sidney

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Needham, Christopher T.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Winfrey, Richard

Nolan, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Wing, Thomas Edward

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Rowntree, Arnold

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Young, William (Perth, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Connor, John (Kildare)

Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Scanlan, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

O'Doherty, Philip

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

O'Dowd, John

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

Haddock, George Bahr

Baird, John Lawrence

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Harris, Henry Percy

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Barnston, Harry

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Crean, Eugene

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Dairymple, Viscount

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Bigland, Alfred

Duke, Henry Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bird, Alfred

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

Hunt, Rowland

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Fell, Arthur

Ingleby, Holcombe

Boyton, James

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Bull, Sir William James

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Kerry, Earl of

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Forster, Henry William

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Butcher, John George

Gibbs, George Abraham

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Campion, W. R.

Goldsmith, Frank

Larmor, Sir J.

Cassel, Felix

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

Cator, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Cautley, H. S.

Grant, J. A.

Lewisham, Viscount

Cave, George

Greene, Walter Raymond

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

1208

1209

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Mackinder, Halford J.

Randies, Sir John S.

Touche, George Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Malcolm, Ian

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Tu lbardine, Marquess of

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Royds, Edmund

Valentia, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

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

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Newdegate, F. A.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

Newman, John R. P.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Sandys, G. J.

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

Nield, Herbert

Spear, Sir John Ward

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

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Stanier, Beville

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Younger, Sir George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stewart, Gershom

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Denniss and Mr. Hoare.

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Peto, Basil Edward

Bill read a second time.

Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 284.

Division No. 203.]

AYES.

[11.11 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lewisham, Viscount

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fell, Arthur

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Baird, John Lawrence

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, John Samuel

Mackinder, Halford J.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Barnston, Harry

Gibbs, George Abraham

Malcolm, Ian

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

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Goldsmith, Frank

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Grant, J. A.

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Greene, Walter Raymond

Mount, William Arthur

Bigland, Alfred

Gretton, John

Newdegate, F. A.

Bird, Alfred

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Newman, John R. P.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Boyton, James

Haddock, George Bahr

Nield, Herbert

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Bull, Sir William James

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Butcher, John George

Harris, Henry Percy

Parkes, Ebenezer

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Campion, W. R.

Helmsley, Viscount

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Cator, John

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Peto, Basil Edward

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cave, George

Hoare, S. J. G.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Randies, Sir John S.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Houston, Robert Paterson

Royds, Edmund

Clynes, John R.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hunt, Rowland

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

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Crean, Eugene

Kerry, Earl of

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Sandys, G. J.

Dairymple, Viscount

Larmor, Sir J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Denison-Pander, J. C.

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

Spear, Sir John Ward

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Stanler, Beville

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

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

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Younger, Sir George

Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

Touche, George Alexander

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Cassel and Mr. G. Stewart.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Tullibardine, Marquess of

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lardner, James C. R.

Adamson, William

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Agnew, Sir George William

Falconer, James

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Alden, Percy

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lundon, Thomas

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, A. A.

Armitage, Robert

Field, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Arnold, Sydney

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

McGhee, Richard

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Maclean, Donald

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Baring, sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South):

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Macpherson, James Ian

Barnes, George N.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Glanville, H. J.

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

Barton, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Goldstone, Frank

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Meagher, Michael

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

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Bentham, G. J.

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

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Middlebrook, William

Boland, John Pius

Hackett, John

Millar, James Duncan

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hancock, J. G.

Molloy, Michael

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Brunner, John F. L.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Mooney, John J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, George Hay

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Morison, Hector

Burke, E. Haviland-

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Muldoon, John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden, John Patrick

Munro, Robert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hayward, Evan

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Needham, Christopher T.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henry, Sir Charles

Nolan, Joseph

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hewart, Gordon

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Higham, John Sharp

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Chancellor, Henry George

Hinds, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hodge, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hogge, J. M.

O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

Clancy, John Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Doherty, Philip

Clough, William

Holt, Richard Dunning

O'Dowd, John,

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Grady, James

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Malley, William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hudson, Walter

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cotton, William Francis

Isaacs. Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Shee, James John

Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Outhwaite. R. L.

Crooks, William

John, Edward Thomas

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cullinan, John

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parry, Thomas H.

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Dawes, James Arthur

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

Delany, William

Jowett, Frederick William

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Joyce, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Devlin, Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Pointer, Joseph

Dickinson, W. H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pollard, Sir George H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Kelly, Edward

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Doris, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Duffy, William J.

Kilbride, Denis

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

King, Joseph

Pringle, William M. R.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Radford, G. H.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Raffan, Peter Wilton

1212

1213

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

Ward, John (Stoke upon-Trent)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wardle, George J.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Reddy, Michael

Sheehy, David

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Webb, H.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Snowden, Philip

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

Randall, Athelstan

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Whitehouse, John Howard

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Sutherland, John E.

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Sutton, John E.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Robinson, Sidney

Tennant, Harold John

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thomas, J. H.

Winfrey, Richard

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Roe, Sir Thomas

Toulmin, Sir George

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

Rowlands, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Rowntree, Arnold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Verney, Sir Harry

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Scanlan, Thomas

Walton, Sir Joseph

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT (MONEY).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided
1214
by Parliament of any additional sums which may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911.—(King's Recommendation signified) To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Official Trustee.
  Official Trustee.
  House of Commons Stationery.
  House of Commons Stationery.
  Income Tax Assessments (Ireland).
  Income Tax Assessments (Ireland).
  Site Value (Case of Mr. R. J. Lumsden).
  Site Value (Case of Mr. R. J. Lumsden).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  INSURANCE COMMITTEE ELECTIONS.
  INSURANCE COMMITTEE ELECTIONS.
  IRISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  IRISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  Slievardagh Coal Mines.
  Slievardagh Coal Mines.
  Piers (Ireland).
  Piers (Ireland).
  Intermediate Schools (Ireland).
  Intermediate Schools (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Midwives (Workhouses, Ireland).
  Midwives (Workhouses, Ireland).
  O'Connell Estate, Cahirciveen.
  O'Connell Estate, Cahirciveen.
ROYAL NAVY.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS (METAL CASES).
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTORS (METAL CASES).
  Education Grants.
  Education Grants.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL REVIEW, HYDE PARK.
  TERRITORIAL REVIEW, HYDE PARK.
  Coal Mines Act, 1911 (Regulations).
  Coal Mines Act, 1911 (Regulations).
  Mining Examinations.
  Mining Examinations.
  Hydraulic Stowage.
  Hydraulic Stowage.
  Miners' Washing Accommodation.
  Miners' Washing Accommodation.
  Indian Opium Stocks.
  Indian Opium Stocks.
  Irish Cattle (Detention at Landing Places).
  Irish Cattle (Detention at Landing Places).
  Egypt (Constitution).
  Egypt (Constitution).
  State Loans to Fishermen.
  State Loans to Fishermen.
  Loss of Glasgow Cadet Ship "Vivid."
  Loss of Glasgow Cadet Ship "Vivid."
  Stocking Holdings (Scotland).
  Stocking Holdings (Scotland).
  Inspector of Nuisances (Chippenham).
  Inspector of Nuisances (Chippenham).
  Willesden Workhouse (Redecoration Contract).
  Willesden Workhouse (Redecoration Contract).
  Port of London (Imports and Exports.)
  Port of London (Imports and Exports.)
  Railway Rates.
  Railway Rates.
  Receipt Stamps.
  Receipt Stamps.
  Post Office (Night and Day Duty).
  Post Office (Night and Day Duty).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bills has been complied with:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

UNITED DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM WAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVSIONAL ORDER (NO. 16) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
SILLOTH GAS BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BLYTE AND COWPEN GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
RIBBLE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 122.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
DOONER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
YORK CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations, dated the 7th day of July 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the Act amending the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) Regulations (Scotland), 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 123.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next" be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2aaccordingly, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Barnes Order.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFICATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to he read 3aTo-morrow.

AN EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, to be good enough to explain the statement he made last night in regard to my cousin. Mr. Hamilton, having written a letter published in the Manchester Guardian grossly attacking the King. I have here a copy of the Manchester Guardian of the date mentioned, and it is evident that the letter which appeared in that newspaper was not written by
964
Mr. Hamilton, the Member for Altrincham, but was written by some irresponsible person with whom the editor of the Manchester Guardian endeavoured, most unjustifiably, to connect Mr. Hamilton's name for purely political purposes. I think that for a Minister of the Crown to be so careless in what he says that he should not look up the newspaper and see that his remarks have foundation in truth, shows what vindictive feelings Ministers entertain towards the other Party. That a Unionist candidate seeking election should have any connection with such a gross attack on the King as is contained in the letter quoted by the Manchester Guardian is perfectly absurd and unthinkable. The letter was evidently written by quite an irresponsible man who had no connection with the Unionist Party at all.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I am sorry that the noble Earl did not give me warning of the fact that he was going to raise this question, because I could then have told him that I was ready and anxious to forestall him on this occasion by explaining to your Lordships that I found, on looking at the report this morning, that I had done some injustice to Mr. Hamilton. The article to which I referred, and which I quoted, was in the Manchester Guardian of May 26, and I regret that I did not more fully quote from that article during the cross-examination to which I was subjected by noble Lords opposite. I am ready and anxious to make apologies to Mr. Hamilton, whose friends are referred to, rather than he himself, in the article which I quoted.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: They are not friends of Mr. Hamilton. I think the noble Earl should withdraw that expression also.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The reason I used the phrase "friends" was that it was used in the heading of the article to which I referred.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Lords, I think it due to my noble friend behind me to add that a somewhat hurried perusal of the extracts which the noble Earl opposite was good enough to hand to me across the Table last night quite satisfied me that none of them could be

965
said to contain anything which could properly be described as a gross personal attack against His Majesty, or as such an attack by a prominent Unionist. There was a quotation from the Manchester Guardian, the issue of which for the date referred to contained no letter of any kind written by Mr. Hamilton. The article quoted was one for which the newspaper, and the newspaper alone, was responsible. The three remaining passages were of a very frivolous character, and to my mind were not in the least of a nature which could justify the construction placed upon them by the noble Earl.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Debate on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2a, viz., to leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz., ("This House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country") resumed (according to Order).
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I am not at all sure that I can do any good by taking part in this debate, because I am afraid that the doom of this Bill has already been pronounced by the noble Marquess opposite—a circumstance which has often before discouraged me in rising to address the House. But as I have for a long time been a very strong advocate of the extension of Home Rule, not only to Ireland, but to all parts of the United Kingdom, and as I think that the situation in which this country finds itself at the present time is serious, I am afraid I might hereafter have occasion to reproach myself if I did not, at all events, contribute what little I can towards the solution of this difficulty. When Mr. Gladstone first brought forward his Bill in 1886 he relied mainly upon the necessity of doing justice to Ireland. That necessity still remains, and no one feels it more keenly than I do. But since that time it has become apparent that what was needed for Ireland—a pleasure of Home Rule or devolution, or whatever you prefer to call it—is needed also, not less and perhaps even snore, for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I will not dwell upon the arguments that have been so often used: they are
966
now threadbare. Our own legislative machinery in this country has really broken down for effective purposes. The House of Commons is so congested—but that is a common-place. Many vital and intricate measures are urgently needed for the welfare of the country—housing, land, education, Poor-law rating—I need not enumerate them. Minor Bills are mainly neglected and great Pills are stamped. It is not merely that, but the House of Commons is and always has been the pivot upon the support of which the Government of the day depends. When there are many important issues together before the House of Commons the temptation to Members of Parliament to sacrifice their own opinions as to what is really best for the country is very difficult to withstand. Some are tempted to support foreign policy because they approve of domestic policy; others, of course, support domestic measures because they do not want to interfere with foreign policy; some support one Bill because they are looking forward to another Bill. All this tends to sap the independence and judgment of the Members of the House of Commons and to turn Members of Parliament largely into ciphers, dependent on the will of Ministers themselves. I do not speak with reference to the present situation or the present Government more than in regard to any other Government, past or future; and those who have been as I have for so long familiar with the House of Commons will recognise that the statement is true. All this will gradually lead us to a state of things when divisions in the House of Commons will not represent the real opinion of the House of Commons itself, but merely an anxiety to keep Ministers in power. It is an unnatural and an artificial state of things in a self-governing community, and it leads to the evils of log-rolling. There is great danger that the Cabinet also will become congested with its work, since it has to supervise the administration of the three kingdoms as well as to hold the responsibility for the entire British Empire, and particularly will the grasp of the great spending Departments elude the vigilance of overwrought Ministers. It is not immaterial to remember that among the principal spending Departments now the Treasury will have to be numbered.
The only remedy for this state of things, in my opinion—an opinion which I have

967
held for a quarter of a century—is that we should separate the business which is common to the whole United Kingdom from the business which is common to the different parts of the United Kingdom, and to remit local business, both of legislation and administration, to those portions of the United Kingdom which, from geographical and historical considerations, are naturally adapted for this treatment. There are few reflecting people at the present time who doubt that this will come; there are few who dispute in conversation that this ought to come. It is not a question of whether, but of when and how the step will be taken, because it is quite impossible to proceed as we are now with a fatigued and exhausted Parliament, and with unworkmanlike business as the result of it. I do not wish to strain in the least even the language, still less the allusions, of the noble Marquess in his speech of yesterday. I will only say that when I listened to the noble Marquess I thought that he himself was not only sensible of the truth of the general consideration to which I have been adverting, but that he was not unprepared to take a step in devolution such as I have indicated.
This Bill is, in my view, a first step toward that final consummation. Ireland is undoubtedly the first and also the most difficult of all the problems to embrace in any general scheme—difficult from financial reasons, and still more difficult from historical considerations; but most of the difficulties which confronted those who were the pioneers in this work, and to whose memory honour ought always to be rendered, have disappeared. When Mr. Gladstone first brought forward his proposals there was crime rife in Ireland in a distressing degree. Juries would not convict, and the condition of the country was one of uproar. Many of your Lordships do not recollect that time, but I recollect it, and some of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite recollect it also full well. But, my Lords, crime has ceased. I do not mean that the country is wholly crimeless. I mean that in comparison with England, which, happily, is one of the most crimeless countries almost in the world, Ireland will bear a very fair comparison. After that there was a very serious difficulty—indeed, concurrently with it—the agrarian difficulty. My sympathy and the sympathy of everybody who knows the history of that country must largely be with
968
the owners of land who suffered so bitterly and so long, but I am glad to say that that question has also almost entirely disappeared. Remember the method of its disappearance. It has disappeared through the concurrence and the combined action of both Parties in the State. Lord Ash-bourne was the first who made the vital proposal—I grieve to think that he no longer is with us—and Mr. Wyndham also, who, unhappily, is lost to his country; but they were supported, and other measures, not particularly liked at the time, I grant, by noble Lords and hon. Members of the House of Commons of Conservative opinion, were concurred in, and a structure was built up at enormous cost. At the cost practically of a gift of£30,000,000 or£35,000,000 to the landowning classes in Ireland a system was built up which has already gone far to put an end to agrarian discontent in that country and promises to be the foundation for a happy future.
The only remaining difficulty is the difficulty of the Protestants of Ulster. I desire to ask your Lordships' candid consideration to what are the rights of Ulster. They are the same as the rights of all other parts of the United Kingdom. They are entitled to be fully assured that, they will be free from religious oppression, that they will not be subject to unfair taxation or unfair treatment, that the administration shall not be harshly or unfairly applied against them. Those things they are entitled to ask as of right and not of favour. But I will ask your Lordships whether they are entitled to say, We, who are 1–45th of the population of the United Kingdom, will not even discuss with you proposals under which we and our fellow-countrymen shall be placed under Home Rule. Are they entitled to say, We condemn you, the people of England and Scotland, to continued Parliamentary helplessness, to raw and hurried legislation, to the inevitable waste of time and money under which you have been suffering for so many years, to a continuance of your social evils unreformed, to a prolonged endurance of the hostility of Irishmen amongst the English-speaking communities in the United States of America and in the Dominions of the Crown. Are they entitled to say; We know your difficulties, but we will not tell you what we will do to assist you, because we will do nothing; we will not have Home

969
Rule in any shape, or in any form, or under any circumstances; we will not have it for ourselves if we am to be separately treated from the rest of Ireland, we will not allow it for the rest of Ireland if it is to be separately treated from us, and we will not listen to it or tolerate it for the whole of Ireland united. Is it right that they should threaten us with mutiny in the Army, with a refusal to pay taxes, with a provisional Government, and with civil war, not only in Ireland, but also in England and in Scotland?
I have put in nothing which has not been advanced by men whom personally I like, but whose political attitude is, I think, very unwise. Are your Lordships prepared to say that those are among the rights which you claim for Ulster or for any part of Ulster? How far claims of this kind and language of this kind have been encouraged by prominent members of the Conservative Party, I would prefer myself not to say. Your Lordships know what has been said, and by whom. Your Lordships are fair-minded men, and can judge whether that is a right attitude for public men to take up or to endorse. A very heavy responsibility rests upon those who encourage language and conduct of that kind, because the threats which are the threats of Ulster to day may become the threats of other parts of Ireland to-morrow; they may become the threats of industrial communities in a state of disturbance. Lessons of that kind are quickly learnt and are not very readily forgotten. In these circumstances it is that when this Bill is brought forward by His Majesty's Ministers the noble Marquess asks in effect for a Dissolution of Parliament, and professes himself confident of the result. I will not enter upon the region of prophecy, because it is notoriously very unsafe ground.
But the noble Marquess asks for a General Election or a referendum. I prefer the former. If either of them, is to come, do not at all events let us plunge into the abyss of referendum. I think a General Election may come, but it is premature to ask for it now, and I will tell your Lordships why I think so. This question lilts been 30 years before the country; the necessity is admitted, is practically admitted, by nearly all reasonable men. A measure was proposed in 1886. It was resisted, and the alternative suggestion was 20 years of
970
resolute government. My Lords, 20 years of resolute government, I think, passed. More than 20 years have passed since that time, but the claim for Home Rule is as loud as ever. ["No ! no !"] Yes, I say, the claim is as loud as ever. I have not learnt to look for the opinion of the people outside their representatives; it is a dangerous lesson for any statesman to learn. I say that the necessity is greater than ever. Then in 1893 another effort was made of a different kind, a fresh variety, and the answer was that you would "kill Home Rule with kindness." These old familiar phrases come up readily to the memory. I will not question your kindness in intention; I do not say it was unwise; on the contrary, I think it was wise. It was very expensive, but it has not killed Home Rule.
And now a third effort is made in this year. Our opponents, as before, say, No, we resist it; nothing shall reconcile us to it. But you do not in the least degree, even by hint, suggest what alternative method you propose to meet the admitted difficulty. That is the situation under which the noble Marquess asks for a General Election. If you get a General Election—I do not know whether you will or not—and you should lose it, may I ask, Are we to understand that the noble Marquess would then support this Bill? I do not receive any answer. It seems to me a very strange thing to ask for a Dissolution unless you are prepared to be bound by the result; and it would be a very strange thing, I must also add, if the noble Marquess said he was going to be bound by the result when he holds the opinion about the Bill which he has so eloquently expressed to your Lordships. Does not that suggest to him that lie is in a somewhat false position in asking for a General Election? But supposing you were to win the General Election, I, for one, would be heartily sorry for you then, because you would be confronted with exactly the same difficulties that face the Government at this moment. You would be obliged to come forward with proposals to relieve the House of Commons from the congestion of business which is throttling its utility, and you would have against you in Ireland, not one-half of a Province, but three Provinces and a-half. That would be your position.
I do not know whether your Lordships have allowed your imagination to forecast

971
what would be in point of fact the actual position of the noble Marquess and his friends if they found themselves in that situation. No, my Lords, the time may come for a General Election, but if it came now, whatever alternative you take, whether you win it or whether you lose it, the country would be the sufferer. Let the noble Marquess first say what is the remedy that he proposes for the admitted difficulty in which we all stand. When he has said that, let it be seen whether it is possible, by concession, by consultation, and, above all, by real goodwill, thinking of the interests of the country alone, whether those difficulties can be composed and an adequate settlement, with the consent of all parties in Leland as well as here, reached. If that cannot be done, if we have so far lost what our fathers possessed, the faculty of dealing with great affairs of State and of solving difficulties which have proved insoluble in many other countries—then will be the time to go before the country and say, "Here is what we propose; here is what is proposed by our opponents; judge you, the people of this country, between us." That would be the time to ask for a General Election, but not when only one proposal, which you think odious and impossible, is put forward before the country, and when we are confronted with the dilemma that if the Government win the election they will be passing into law a Bill which you consider impossible and certain to lead to trouble, while if you win it the result will be that no difficulties will have disappeared but you will have to do the same thing then which I think you ought to do now—namely, contribute the best that you can according to your abilities and according to your love of your country towards the settlement of a great emergency. That is my view, which I venture to submit for the consideration of your Lordships. The truth is that we are at this time in the midst of a great national crisis, which we should be foolish to shut our eyes to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Who created it?
EARL LOREBURN: Who created it? History, mainly, has created it. Any who know what the history of Ireland is are not surprised at some of the developments which have taken place of late. I say we have a great national crisis to deal
972
with, which is the result of many generations of mistaken government in Ireland; and the Constitution of this country is also in need of reform—the constitution of the House of Commons as well as that of the House of Lords. A comprehensive settlement by consent is required, if it is possible. I think I know what a great Conservative statesman would say at this juncture if he was speaking in the Palace of Truth and had shaken himself free from that which afflicts a good many of us, the caucus and the wire-pullers. I think he would say, This subject has been long enough, has been too long, treated as the battle ground of political parties; you have gained glorious victories upon this ground, but the quarry is nearly exhausted, and it is time that the interests of the country should be considered. He would say, The United Kingdom is an aggregation of several nations, fairly homogeneous in race, but not homogeneous in history; it contains millions of men of many creeds—and a difference of creed has been hitherto one of the most fruitful sources of human discord—and I do not like the recrudescence of religious bigotry and will do nothing to encourage it.
I believe also that a Conservative statesman would recognise that there is a great deal of restlessness and impatience at certain intolerable conditions of life and industry in this country which might be cured. He would recognise that lawlessness will only aggravate it, and that the example of lawlessness is contagious. I do not think that any great statesman, either upon the Conservative or upon any other side, likes threats of violence and anarchy, or the veiled support of them, by men of influence, however well-intentioned they may be; and I believe that the true course, the course which a great statesman would take—and I acknowledge that the noble Marquess answers that description would be to say this, I will tell you, not merely what you ought not to do, but what I think you ought to do in order to appease animosities in Ireland, in order to enable our own people to settle their constitutional difficulties and to face the internal embarrassments with which they are confronted. I think it is not creditable to a great nation like ourselves, renowned for practical statesmanship, that we should sit like fatalists awaiting some inevitable destiny, and not make a common effort to see if we could not avert it.

973
I think, if I may venture to say so, that your Lordships are making a great mistake in giving up this opportunity—an excellent opportunity—of discussing, without committing yourselves in the least to any acceptance of this Bill, the different questions that arise upon it, pointing out the Weak points, as you see them, in the Bill and discussing each particular, because it is only by the discussion of particulars that you can arrive at the general result. But your Lordships have evidently come to a decision, and it is useless for me to make entreaty where I know it will meet with no response. But there still remain six months before this Bill can be brought in again. If that time is spent, not in inflaming difficulties, but in trying to assuage them, in an effort to see whether it is not possible, after all, for a general assent to be given to some statesmanlike scheme, it is my own belief that you would find the difficulties less than you imagine. I have faith that some agreement could be attained to with the consent of all parties in Ireland as well as in this country, without which, indeed, it would be of comparatively little value. What bars the road to conciliation is not the perversity of the Government; it is the impenetrable silence of the noble Marquess and his friends on this vital occasion. And I hope that your Lordships, with all the influence that you possess, will endeavour to persuade those who represent Conservative traditions in this country to contribute their wisdom during the next six months. If you undertake and succeed in the task, then, however you may resent the tumultuous controversies of recent times, however much you may regret them, you will be able, at least, to cherish one recollection—that you have conferred a priceless benefit upon England in the hour of danger.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House on either side who has not listened to the speech of the noble and learned Earl with feelings of great interest, because from the earliest days when Home Rule was introduced into the House of Commons he has been an ardent Home Ruler—very different from some of his colleagues in the Cabinet. Therefore as a consistent Home Ruler we are bound to listen with respect to what he says. But when he talked about the manner in which this measure had been carried through the
974
House of Commons, when he alluded to the fact that it was done by log-rolling, I fully anticipated that he was going to make the speech that I myself was going to make. I venture to say that never before in the annals of your Lordships' House has a measure so important, so all important, as this Home Rule Bill been sent up to this House within six months after it had been rejected by your Lordships. It cannot be denied that each stage of the Bill, whether it has been in the House of Commons or whether it has been in your Lordships' House, has been more or less of a farce. We knew full well when it came up to your Lordships' House in January last that not even one-sixth of the Bill had been discussed, and we know now that coming up as it has a second time to this House from the other place it is sent up absolutely and entirely undiscussed. I ask noble Lords opposite whether they can recall any measure of this importance that has been so treated, so absolutely ignored by the House of Commons.
We know that we are discussing this Bill on this occasion from a purely academic point of view. We know full well that we have no power beyond delaying the Bill till the spring of next year. We know full well that this is virtually the last occasion, academic though it may be, upon which we shall discuss this Bill in this House, and discuss it as you may, you know it will become the law of the land over your Lordships' heads. Consequently when the Bill comes up again next year your Lordships' action to day will be rendered absolutely futile. This Bill, as we know, has been rushed through the House of Commons through all its stages so that it may become law next year under the Parliament Act. But what has been the expense at which this measure is being carried? It is being carried at the expense of ruining and wrecking our great Constitution and the degradation of our whole Parliamentary system. Why has this been done? In order that His Majesty's Government may retain the support of Mr. Redmond to enable them to pass their various measures. They have paid a price, and a very heavy price, and they have been enabled by means of the Parliament Act to carry through both Houses this Home Rule Bill, not only behind the backs, but I venture to say contrary to the will, of the people of this country.

975
The Government know well that if they dared appeal to the people of this country on the question of Home Rule for Ireland, the result would be what it was in 1886 and 1893, and it is because they dare not do this that I so cordially support the Amendment of my noble friend behind me, in which he declares that your Lordships' House will never pass this Bill without the people of this country being consulted on the question. I know it has been said that it is somewhat difficult to start any new matter or any new argument on a measure which was rejected only six months ago by your Lordships' House. I fully admit that, but I do not admit that those arguments ought not to be reintroduced, because I think as time has gone on the arguments put forward by the members of your Lordships' House for rejecting the Home Rule Bill in January last have not only been strengthened but have been very considerably reinforced. I do not know whether I shall get any answers to the questions that I put to His Majesty's Government in January last. I then drew their attention to the great prosperity which at the present moment is enjoyed in Ireland. I gave statistics and figures in proof of that assertion. I will not weary your Lordships with them now, although I could if they were challenged. I asked His Majesty's Government to state how, under their system of Home Rule, they proposed to maintain—I will not say promote or increase—the present prosperity in Ireland. I asked that question then, and I ask it now. I got no answer then; I do not know whether I shall get an answer now. I hope I shall.
But I do make this statement, that the present prosperity of Ireland is due entirely to English credit and to the money that England has advanced to Ireland, to further her prosperity—money well advanced, because the interest on that money has always been exceedingly well repaid. What has that money done for Ireland? I will quote not any member of your Lordships' House who holds the same views as I do, but I will quote the leader of the Nationalist Party, Mr. Redmond. What did Mr. Redmond say in America in the year 1910? He said—
"Over one-half of Ireland, the tillers of the soil are absolute owners…Within the last six years we have obtained 30,000,000 dollars from the British Exchequer to remove those wretched hovels and to erect in their places decent, sanitary, habitations for the labourers of Ireland."
976
He went on to say how the general conditions of Ireland had improved most materially during the last few Years.
Then there was a speech by the Chief Secretary for Ireland made only a short time ago in which he draws attention to the enormous increase in the prosperity and the welfare of Ireland. I went with my friends the Irish Unionist Members to Leeds and quoted this statement of Mr. Redmond's at a large demonstration there, and I asked them to request Mr. Redmond (who had scurried after Sir Edward Carson like a ferret after a rabbit in the hope of undermining what he had said—a thing which he could not do) to say how he proposed to maintain the present prosperous condition of Ireland when it was deprived of English credit, and how he proposed to maintain the prosperity of Ireland if he had only Ireland's slender resources to depend upon. I have read the local papers, and my speech is fully reported in all of them, but Mr. Redmond took no notice of that challenge. He ignored it entirely, but I hope it will not be ignored to-night by the noble Viscount the President of the Council. I ask him how he proposes to maintain the present prosperity of Ireland when it is deprived of English credit and dependent only on its own resources. The statements I have quoted, both of Mr. Redmond and also of the Chief Secretary, show beyond all doubt the absolute falsity of the statement that Ireland is not progressing under the Union at the present moment. The noble and learned Earl alluded in the course of his speech to the Acts which had been passed by Lord Ashbourne and by Mr. 'Wyndham, but how could those occupiers have become the owners of their land if it had not been for money advanced owing to British credit. How, therefore, is it proposed to deal in the future with this matter if Ireland is separated from England and there is no credit upon which to advance the money?
When I addressed your Lordships on the last occasion I alluded to the great prosperity that has taken place in Ulster, and especially in Belfast, and I told your Lordships that I attributed that prosperity, as we all do in Ulster, to the Act of Union which brought Ulster into closer contact with England. Therefore it was with considerable surprise that I read a speech by the Chief Secretary, Mr. Birrell, a short time ago, in which he asked the question,

977
What is the opinion of the business men of Ulster with regard to Home Rule? I know that the Chief Secretary spends a very short period of the year in Ireland, but I thought he perhaps might have made himself acquainted with what the opinions of the business men in Belfast were on this subject. If he did not know for himself, he had only to ask his colleague the Prime Minister. For the Prime Minister received a deputation from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, representatives of Ulster, which left him under no misapprehension as to the views upon this Bill of the business and commercial and industrial world of Belfast. What did the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast tell the Prime Minister with regard to their opinions about Home Rule? This is the report which they brought under the notice of the Prime Minister—
"The determined and solid opposition of practically the whole commercial community of the country and of so large a part of the population of the North of Ireland to a Home Rule Government, even if such opposition were based on ignorance and prejudice instead of on well-founded apprehension, would alone ensure its shipwreck. No Government could succeed which had to encounter the bitter hostility of the most progressive and industrial part of its people."
After that statement by the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, I do not think the Chief Secretary need ask any further what is the opinion of the industrial community in that part of the Province of Ulster.
Yesterday my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the fact that it was often stated that if Home Rule were granted to Ireland there would be civil war in Ulster, and that if Home Rule were not granted to Ireland there would be civil war in the other three provinces. Be dealt with that question very fully, and, if I am not mistaken, the noble and learned Earl who preceded me also alluded to it. I should like to elaborate the question a little further. I do not think that anybody who knows anything with regard to Ireland will contradict me when I say that if Home Rule is granted to Ireland there will be civil war in Ulster. That you may take for granted.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: After an election?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I said nothing about an election. I doubt very much whether there is that enthusiasm
978
in the other three Provinces for Borne Rule that exists in the Province of Ulster in its determination to oppose it. Why should there be any reason for the three Provinces to create civil war if Home Rule is not granted to them? Every reason is against them. They have prospered under the Union. They know full well, as I said just now, that the occupying classes have obtained their holdings, thanks to the credit of the English people. They are glad to have them; they do not want any extra taxation put upon them by Mr. Redmond, who must secure money at any cost; and there are a large number of those who at the present moment have not bought their holdings—stopped through your interrupting Mr. George Wyndham's Act—although they would like to buy them, and they know full well that if Home Rule is granted the money will not be forthcoming and they will be left to shift for themselves the best way they can.
I honestly say that I do not myself frequently visit the South and West of Ireland, and therefore I have no practical experience of it, but I have met a large number of people who have travelled through the South and West of Ireland. They have gone privately through the South and West, and have found that there is no desire amongst the people there for Home Rule. If you could meet the people in those Provinces privately and secretly, they would tell you that they are perfectly happy as they are and are anxious that they should be allowed to remain as they are. Bat I know the answer that will be given. "Oh, but you have eighty Nationalist Members in the House of Commons. How do you account for that?" That is an argument that can be put forward, and it is a very practical one, and will take on; but my point is this, that if the people in the South and West of Ireland were free front this political machinery and allowed to give vent to their own opinions, you would find no desire amongst them for Home Rule. Therefore when I hear it said, "If Home Rule is not granted there will be civil war in the South and West of Ireland," I venture to disagree. But I say there will be civil war in Ulster with the most absolute certainty if Home Rule is granted.
There is another point to which I wish to allude. I am, as you know, closely

979
associated with the Province of Ulster. I am closely associated with the Union between England and Ireland. I am proud that that is so, as I am the collateral descendant of the man who upheld that Union. I often hear it stated in political circles that the whole of this action of Ulster at the present moment, though it may seem important, is only "bluff," because the same attitude was taken up in the year 1869, when the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill was carried. Let me say at once that anyone who endeavours to compare the conditions when the Irish Church Bill was carried with those that exist now is either grossly ignorant or wilfully inaccurate. When the Irish Church Bill was opposed in Ireland it was opposed by the members of the Episcopal Church, but against them were ranged all the other Protestant denominations. What do we find now? We find not only the Episcopal Church but all Nonconformist denominations ranged together in their determination to oppose Home Rule. Let me give you an instance. On the famous occasion of Ulster Day, throughout Ulster every cathedral, every church, every chapel, every school-house even, was used to carry on services in connection with the signing of the Covenant, and every one of those services was conducted by representatives of the Church of Ireland and Nonconformists, showing you that the Nonconformists and the Church of Ireland are working together at the present time in their determination to oppose Home Rule.
I hear it stated sometimes that the feeling in Ulster against Home Rule is waning. I differ from that entirely. May I give your Lordships an experience of my own? I was in Belfast on Saturday last, and I saw there the greatest demonstration that I have ever seen. And not only in Belfast was there this great demonstration, but throughout all Ulster 12th of July meetings were held in far larger numbers than they have ever been held before, showing the determination of the people to stand by the Covenant which they signed in September last. I do not know whether your Lordships are fully aware of the wording of the solemn Covenant which was signed last year. I have a copy here, but I do not think I will weary your Lordships by reading the whole of it. What I would like to read out is the meaning of the pledge given by the signing of that Covenant, which those hundreds of
980
thousands of men who attended that demonstration last Saturday committed themselves to. It was this—that being convinced that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster and Ireland, subversive of civil and religious freedom, destructive of citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, the signatories pledged themselves to defend the cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, to use all necessary means to defeat Home Rule, and to refuse to recognise the authority of an Irish Parliament forced upon them. I know full well that that Covenant, which was signed by 237,000 men and 234,000 women, has been run down and depreciated by those who are opposed to the maintenance of the Union. They have endeavoured to make out that those who signed this important and solemn Covenant were men of extreme opinion—bigoted Orangemen. Let me read out to you who were the people that signed that Covenant. It was signed by the most responsible leaders, men to whom force was objectionable and the path of peace most desirable, including the Primate of All Ireland, representing practically the whole of the clergy and laity of his church; the Moderator of the General Assembly, representing the great Presbyterian community, who were the backbone of Ulster and whose forefathers signed another Covenant in Scotland; the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference and the ex-Secretary of the Congregational Union, representing the Irish section of those great Protestant bodies; the Provost of Trinity College, representing all that is best in the learning and culture of Ireland; the Right Hon. Thomas Andrews, the Right Hon. Thomas Sinclair, and Sir William Crawford, representing the great manufacturing and commercial elements to which Ulster owes so much of its prosperity. When you are told that this Covenant was signed by only the extremists, you will bear in mind the representative men who actually did sign it.
My Lords, may I be allowed for a moment to tell you my experience of Ulster Day in Belfast? That day was, to my mind, the most solemn day in my life, and one that I shall never forget. We all went to different, places of worship, to pray God to save our Union and to save us from this Bill. I my-self went to the Cathedral in Belfast. I saw there an

981
enormous congregation, recognising the solemnity of the pledge they were going to give, and never will I forget what was impressed on my mind when the hymn was sung "To Thee, O God, we fly"—the solemnity, the fervour, and the sincerity of that vast congregation when they joined in the refrain—
"O Lord, stretch forth Thy mighty hand,
And guard and save our Fatherland."
But what impressed in even more was the sermon delivered shortly after by the Bishop of Down. I need not eulogise the Bishop of Down. He is regarded as one of our greatest Prelates, whether from an educational or any other point, of view. He preached a sermon on that occasion which I wish I had time to read out to your Lordships. It made an impression upon me and upon all who heard it. He hail carefully weighed every word that he uttered. He knew the responsibility that devolved upon him as a Bishop. And in the course of that sermon he gave vent to this observation—
"There were things worse than war—worse than torture and death—and that war became possible when the foundations were shaken."
Shortly after that the Bishop of Derry said in his cathedral—
"If they were persuaded that their freedom to worship God was at stake, must they shrink from defending it?"
When we have Prelates giving solemn warning of what is going to occur if the Government persist in pursuing this wild course, are we not justified in asking them to pause before they plunge Ulster into this serious condition of civil war
I can tell your Lordships that, out of the many who signed that Covenant, there are some tens of thousands of young men at the present moment who are prepared to resist to the utmost the forcing upon them of a Home Rule Parliament on College Green under Mr. Redmond and his satellites. I can tell you this, that these men have, ever since signing that Covenant, given up their recreation to drilling and perfecting themselves in all military manœuvres, and I am told by experts on whom I can rely that these men are as efficient, as well-disciplined, as well-organised, as any number of the Territorial Army in this country. What are those men drilling for? Are they drilling for anything disloyal to the King? Are they doing anything disloyal to this country? They are drilling because they are determined that they
982
will not sacrifice their birthright; they will not submit, vulgarly speaking, to be kicked out of this Empire; they are determined to oppose anything of the kind, and, if necessary, to oppose it by force of arms.
What are these men prepared to do? They are well drilled and are efficient. I am told on good authority that if His Majesty's Government will inform them that they need have no longer any fear of Home Rule they will, if they are asked, gladly join your Territorial Army in this country and give themselves, their time, and their services to serving their King and their country to the best of their ability. Your Territorial Army is very short in numbers. Are you going to ignore this offer from these loyal men who could be of use to you, and who are only too anxious to serve you if you will only assist them and stand by them in their hour of peril? What I want to ask His Majesty's Government is this, What are you going to do for these men if you refuse their offer to join your Territorial Army?— because it virtually comes to the same thing. Are you going to order the English troops to shoot down these men, who are only fighting to maintain the position that they occupy at the present moment, who are only fighting to remain under you and your Constitution, who are devoted to you, ready to serve you—are you going to order them to be shot down at the dictates of Mr. Redmond and his satellites, men who in the House of Commons cheered the Boer victories and the reverses of the British troops in South Africa, and who rewarded Major Lynch by finding him a seat in Galway because he had fought against us in the South African War? Are you going to shoot them down at the dictates of these men? I read a paragraph in the Nation on Sunday last in which it said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given a hint that the English troops would not shoot down these loyal men, and it was said there also that the Prince Minister had given an affirmative. I looked at The Times, and I saw that the affirmative meant only a nod. I want a categorical answer. Are you going to order the English troops, at the dictates of Mr. Redmond, to shoot down these loyal men because they only wish to remain part and parcel of the British Empire? I put that question to the noble Marquess, and I should like to

983
have an answer "Yes" or "No." Do you endorse the Prime Minister? Are you going to shoot down these men? I want a categorical answer to that straight question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely the noble Marquess does not expect me to make a second speech.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No; I only want you to say "Yes" or "No."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think that the noble Marquess would be wiser to wait for a categorical reply from my noble friend, Lord Morley.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No. I shall not get it. I want an answer now—"Yes" or "No."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Marquess will not get it from me.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Then, if you do not order the troops to shoot down the people of Ulster what are you going to do with Ulster? Let me have an answer to that.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Has the noble Marquess finished his speech?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes; I have finished.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I think it will generally be admitted that this debate would have been deprived of much of its usefulness, and indeed its reality, if the course suggested by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition had been rigidly adhered to. We should have been deprived of the eloquent and stirring speech which the noble Marquess who has just sat down has delivered to the House. After all, the Amendment of the noble Marquess is in fact an evasion of the real issue that divides the two sides of the House on this question. We are not going to consider or discuss the merits of the Home Rule Bill, but are to be led into a sort of constitutional problem as to the desirability or not of applying a referendum or a General Election to questions such as this. The noble Marquess declines to engage in a pitched battle on this subject, although, with a sort of
984
confidence which reminds one of the telegrams which came from the seat of war in the Balkans, he describes the last engagement which took place in this House in January as a very one-sided affair. If we are not to have a Second Reading of this Bill still less are we to have a Committee stage. The noble Marquess said that to have a Committee stage would be a serious loss of self-respect, although he admitted that it is the Committee stage which is the real ordeal, and the proper ordeal, to which every measure should be submitted. I have a shrewd suspicion that the description does not wholly account for the noble Marquess's reluctance to enter into the Committee stage of this Bill. I cannot help thinking that he is rather afraid of dividing his supporters and of suffering defeat in detail if we go to Committee stage, because I noticed that his supporters last night were of very different opinions with regard to the important parts of the measure. For instance, the Earl of Mayo stated in the House that he did not want any Irish representatives at Westminster, whereas Earl Grey said that he would like to have 103 at least.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the Government had not the moral courage to get rid of the Irish Members at Westminster.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I very much regret if I have misrepresented the noble Earl. All I can say is that that is what the noble Earl, Lord Grey, thought he said. We in this House suffer very much from the lack of an official report of our proceedings published on the morning after the debate, and one has to rely on the necessarily somewhat scanty report which appears in The Times and other newspapers. But whether that be true or not, Lord Willoughby de Broke carried his truculence, as it seemed to me, to the extent of telling his leader—for I imagine he is his leader—the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that he and those who acted with him would under no circumstances accept the domination of the Carlton Club.
It is to be regretted that we are not to have a Second Reading or Committee stage of this Bill, because if it be true that the Suggestion Stage in the House of

985
Commons is as farcical as it has been described by noble Lords opposite, that does not apply to this House. There is nothing in the Parliament Act to prevent this House making Amendments and sending the Bill back to the other House; nor does the Act prevent those Amendments being incorporated in the Bill in the other House. It seems to me that we should have done well, in the cause so eloquently advocated by my noble friend Lord Loreburn and others, if we had taken into more serious consideration the possibility of an agreement on this subject. For instance, there was a proposal made by Mr. John Redmond—I remember hearing it made—with regard to additional representation for the Province of Ulster. It seems to me that that was an attempt to bridge the difficulty which exists, and to offer to Lister, if necessary, still greater guarantees of safety and of security and of being able to influence the national councils.
Then, my Lords, I would very much have liked to come to closer quarters with the noble Earl, Lord Grey, on the question of Federalism. I should like to know what are the obstacles in this Bill which in his opinion exist to the carrying out of a general scheme of Federalism, and I should like to have heard in greater detail what his proposals would be. We had two instances last night of ex-Colonial Governors' pride in the institutions over which they had the good fortune to preside with success. It is true, of course, that the institutions differ considerably in Canada and Australia, but both noble Lords seemed to think that they formed a basis on which an advance could be made. But if I may say so with respect to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, I think it is possible to push the Colonial analogy too far, for what may be applicable and valuable in a system of Colonial institutions is not necessarily the pattern upon which we ought to frame ours here. It must be obvious that the complexity of the problem is far greater in this country than that which exists in the Colonies. It is a matter of surprise to me that there is on the part of these ex-Colonial Governors, proud as they are of the institutions with which they have been in contact, so little confidence in the author of those very institutions to frame for itself such a scheme of Federalism as is adapted to its own needs.
986
I should like to have said a word on the subject of finance, because, after all, that forms one of the most important subjects of the Home Rule Bill. I think it is a matter which has been much misunderstood and only partially studied. In my opinion the speech of the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn is largely responsible for the hostility which has been exhibited to our financial proposals. He came down to your. Lordships' House last January and made one of those extremely able and cogent speeches to which we are accustomed from him, and he attacked the whole finance of the measure. So much so that subsequent speakers, amongst whom was Lord Curzon, said you had only to listen to that speech to realise that the finance of the Bill was absolutely unworkable. I am not going to weary your Lordships by going into any financial exposition of the principles of this Bill, but I would like to say that I think Lord St. Aldwvn's speech left a somewhat unfair impression on the House as to the character of our financial proposals. He has not been in his place since he made that speech, but were he here I should invite him to re-consider several of the statements he then made, because I think, if not positively inaccurate, they were misleading. But there is one to which I will refer, which I think is a fair instance of the sort of point against the Bill that Lord St. Aldwyn made, and one as to which he must have been guilty of a slip, because the statement, as far as I could verify it, is absolutely inaccurate. He was speaking of the possibility of Irishmen being guilty of rather sharp practice when it came to taking over the reserved services. He said—
"As time goes on and the period arrives for the consideration by the Irish Government of the question whether it will exercise its option of taking over the reserved services or not, the Irish Government will be quite clever enough to exercise that option at the precise moment when the reserved services have reached their highest amount and are on the point of beginning to decline."
That is one of the points he made against the finance. But when he said that, he entirely overlooked Clause 17, subsection (6), where it is definitely laid down that when the Joint Exchequer Board have to consider the equivalent value of the service to be transferred to the Irish Government, they are to be guided by this consideration—
"In determining that equivalent, regard shall be had to the prospect of any increase or advance

987
in the cost of that service which may be expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration."
I think it will be clear to the House, as it is to me, that in that particular, at any rate, the noble Viscount entirely misled your Lordships as to the character of our financial proposals; but as he is not here I will not pursue that point further.
I return to the noble Marquess's Amendment. The noble Marquess informed us that since we last discussed this matter he had discovered the value of the Parliament Act in enabling this House to delay legislation. I congratulate him on the very astute use lie has made of that discovery. He is not content with taking advantage of the legitimate privileges which the Opposition enjoy in this house in delaying legislation, but he is concerned to deck it in a popular garb. He comes down to this House and demands that we should refer the Bill to the country either by General Election or by referendum. It seems to me that that demand is quite irreconcilable with the declaration he made yesterday with regard to the support which he is prepared to give Ulster in the event of Ulster resorting to armed force. It is quite true that he qualified that to the extent of saying that it was only "in the present circumstances"—those were his qualifying words. I remember catching the emphasis which he laid upon them. But, my Lords, his declaration with regard to what the Unionist Party will do in the event of Ulster offering opposition cannot be taken alone. There are other declarations made by other prominent members of the Unionist Party; and I suggest that as far as their effect is to be estimated those declarations must be pooled. It is the cumulative effect of the declarations made by the responsible heads of the Party opposite to which we have to direct our attention. I am not going in this connection to lay any particular stress on the observations made by Lord Willoughby de Broke, and his party of die-hards whom he represented as living over a gunmaker's shop in Ryder-street and organising resistance.
But what I do pay attention to is the declaration made by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, only last Saturday at Craigavon. There we find no such qualifying words as "in the present circumstances." I have read the resolution care-
988
fully, and I see no such qualification. They say—
"We resolve that it is our bounden duty and that of every loyalist to make and complete all preparations necessary for resisting by force and every other method the decrees or other executive acts of, or on behalf of, any Nationalist Parliament that may be established."
Indeed, it is hardly necessary to quote that to your Lordships, for only just now the noble Marquess declared that if this Bill passes there is certain to be civil war in Ireland; and when the Lord President of the Council asked him whether that was contingent upon whether there had been an election or not, I understood him to evade that question and adhere to his point that there would, in any circumstance, be civil war if this Bill became law. In those circumstances I think we are justified in saying that, whatever may be the value and whatever may be the moderation of the noble Marquess's intentions, there is no guarantee that if we gave way and were to go to the country we should have any grounds for thinking if we won the election, that the Party opposite would support us, not only in carrying the Bill but in putting it into effective force.
The noble Marquess has made a challenge. He has challenged us to go to the country. I would like to ask him a question. I presume I am right in thinking that the policy of Tariff Reform still remains a main plank, or one of the main planks, in the policy of the Party opposite. What I would like to know is this. Supposing the noble Marquess and his Party are returned to power as the result of the next election and they introduce their Tariff Reform policy, and supposing those connected with the Lancashire cotton industry, who are credited with being opposed to the Tariff Reform policy, and who, after all, comprise the premier industry of this country—a great, powerful, industrial community—were to say they declined to be bound by the Tariff Reform policy of the noble Marquess and his friends, would the noble Marquess then think it his duty to submit that question to the country in the shape of a referendum? I dare say I shall not get an answer to that; but, personally, I hope he would not do anything of the kind. I view with considerable alarm and misgiving the growth of this pernicious doctrine of referendum. I do not say there are no cases in which it may work usefully; but, speaking generally, I regard it to be destructive of the responsibility both

989
of Parliament and, what is more important, of the electors themselves.
To turn for a moment to the question of Ulster. The noble Marquess, in his speech yesterday, made a long quotation about the Bill being a decrepit compromise. He said that the quotation came from the organ of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and he said that it was upon that sort of statement that the apprehensions of Ulster were founded. I have been authorised by the President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians to give the most categorical denial to the fact that that statement or anything of the kind ever appeared in the organ of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is the Hibernian Journal. I think it only right that I should state that to the noble Marquess, because there is no doubt that he laid very great stress upon this quotation. He told us that those were the sort of things that made Ulstermen apprehensive as to what might be their fate if Home Rule were passed; and, as I say, I have the authority of the President to say that no such statement ever appeared in any organ belonging to the Ancient Order of Hibernians. We know at last what is to happen with regard to Ulster. We have long waited, but on Saturday last Sir Edward Carson told us that there was going to be a Provisional Government set up. Sir Edward Carson admits that it will be difficult, but he says they mean to do it. Then the noble Marquess asks, If a Provisional Government is set up, what will you do? The noble Marquess is confident that whatever happens no force is to be employed; there are to be no bayonets.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not express that as my anticipation. I said that I understood a statement to that effect to have been made in the other House of Parliament.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Sir Edward Carson in his speech made that statement. However, I think that is the view that is entertained; but it is not a very important point, and I will not press it. Though the Government of this country, whether it be ourselves or yourselves, would be extremely reluctant to employ force on occasions of this kind, yet no Government can preclude themselves from carrying out the most elementary duties of government, and it might be conceivably necessary to use force for the purpose of carrying on the civil government of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I ask the noble Lord if that is the answer to the question which I put to the Leader of the House as to whether you are going to use force against Ulster? Is that the answer, that the Government are going to use force against Ulster? Perhaps you are replying for Lord Crewe.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: No; I certainly should not do that for a moment. I am not concerned to answer all the noble Marquess's questions. I tried to do so in January but with very little success, and now I am merely trying to develop my argument irrespective of the question which the noble Marquess asked and which no doubt will be answered in due time. The noble Marquess said, What are you going to do? I will tell him what we will not do. We will not play into the hands of the Orange organisers. I dare say the Orange organisers in the four counties of Ulster would welcome a collision between the civil population and the troops, and that they would hope to gain from it public sympathy in this country. It seems to me that the Orangemen are behaving in this connection much as the militant suffragists behave. The militant suffragists at one time rather thought that once they got roughly handled by the Police public sympathy would be excited and the public would say "Give them the vote." As a matter of fact, public opinion did not take that course at all. The public did not say "Give them the vote," but rather "Give them something else." I wonder whether the enthusiasm which was exhibited at the meetings to which the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, alluded, and the enthusiasm at Craigavon, will survive the real hardships of a self-inflicted boycott. Because that is the meaning of a Provisional Government. It involves, as I think, financial business, and legal, and for all I know, postal isolation.
My Lords, is not the situation just a trifle melodramatic? Those who propose to adopt this unconstitutional, this extra-constitutional, action ought at any rate to be able to say that there is no other way of achieving their object. But in this case is that so? Is there no other way in which the Orangemen of Ulster can achieve their purpose and the Conservative Party, who support them, achieve theirs? Lord Lansdowne, speak-

991
ing yesterday, estimated that the Irish Parliament must be set up not later than May of 1915. Did it not occur to him that it is almost certain that a General Election will take place before that date? I do not know whether the noble Marquess remembers a letter written on August 15 of last year by the First Lord of the Admiralty to a gentleman called Sir George Ritchie, the president of his association, and written, I understand, for the Government, in which he used these words—
"If the Orangemen are as right as we hold them wrong in all the evils they apprehend from an Irish Parliament, it is certain that before they are actually affected there must be another General Election."
That statement has never been contradicted. I understand it was made, as I say, with a full sense of responsibility; and further, if your Lordships are not satisfied with that observation, I suggest to you what I ventured to suggest last year—that it is open to you to amend Clause 49, which deals with the appointed day, in such a sense as will make it certain that an election will take place before the Act comes into operation and before any interest in Ulster can be affected by an Irish Executive. That, I think, would have been, if I may venture to suggest it, the more ingenuous course for the noble Marquess to adopt. Because he knows that in tempting us into what is always the morass of difficulties of a General Election we run the risk of being beaten on questions not even remotely connected with the question of Home Rule, and in the confusion of issue the Party to which the noble Marquess belongs may gain an advantage to which they are not entitled.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to extend to me the kindly indulgence which you usually extend to those who for the first time address the House. I am painfully conscious that it is not an altogether pleasant moment for me, and I am also conscious that I may inflict myself upon your Lordships somewhat to your detriment. Although I had meant to confine myself to speaking to the Amendment of the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House, I feel that I should like to try for a very few moments to meet some of the points which have been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord complained of evasion. If my memory serves me aright, the lack of what
992
I believe was called a frontal attack was also complained of when this Bill was last before the House in January of this year. But the noble Lord seemed to regard the attack delivered upon this Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, as worthy of Ids close attention; and I venture to think that if the point which he attempted to make against the noble Viscount's criticism of the financial provisions of this Bill was the strongest he could find, then the absence of Lord St. Aldwyn from this House has not weakened his case in any way.
The noble Lord also told us that he was surprised that those who had witnessed the Federal system at work in His Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas could see their way to criticise this Bill. I ask the noble Lord whether he supposes that if New South Wales had opposed the suggestions for the forming of a Commonwealth, that Commonwealth would ever have been consummated. The noble Lord complains that, amongst the many difficulties which his Party have to face they have to face the difficulty of discovering exactly what the collective discourses of the leaders of the Party to which I belong mean. I am sure we sympathise with him, because we find considerable difficulty in gathering, from such varied sources as the noble Marquess who leads the House and Mr. Redmond, the true situation which surrounds this Bill. The noble Lord knows, and I know, that the difficulties which lie before the Government at the moment are the difficulties which Ulster is putting in their way, and those are practically the only difficulties. Noble Lords themselves in January were not concerned with proving the marvellous excellence of their Bill. I think they went so far as to say that the Bill itself was a provisional and a tentative one. My own humble opinion is that they were less careful to bring in a Bill which they themselves believed to be perfect because they knew then that it could never conic into law. Passing through under the Parliament Act may be the same as coming into law in theory; but that does not mean that the Bill has the support of the community, and without the support of the community no Bill has really come into law.
It has been said that under the Parliament Act a certain amount of apathy has crept into the public life of this country.

993
I suppose it is impossible to keep up the pitch of enthusiasm over the long and wearying months which must elapse while the Bill is passing from stage to stage. I can only speak with a knowledge of a very small part of my own country, Scotland., but it is a knowledge which I have collected from close work in the constituency in which I live; and if noble Lords opposite think that I have misread the signs in the sky they can refer what I am about to say to their distinguished and versatile colleague the Lord Advocate for Scotland. I confess it has been a surprise to me, but it is so, that in the constituency of West Lothian we have never made so much headway as we have since this Home Rule controversy came to the fore. We pressed it everywhere, and I myself have taken the chair at meetings in districts where I do not think a Tory, much less a Tory Lord, would have dared to show his nose six or seven years ago. You are profoundly mistaken if you suppose that the country is apathetic about this point. Why is it that we are doing so successfully? I speak only for a very small district. I have no general knowledge, but I know that we, in particular, are doing very successfully in this particular direction. It is because we have managed to convince our fellow-countymen that you propose to do what is a monstrous injustice to Ireland.
There are two other reasons which I think—it is only my personal opinion—are affecting the electorate in my part of the world. There is profound irritation, so I think, at the notion that the Party opposite will have left, if their Bill comes into active operation, a large body of Irish representatives at Westminster. Some people were inclined to support the Bill, not because they thought it was good for Ireland, but because they were profoundly wearied with the interruption of public business at Westminster. We are a slow-thinking race, perhaps you will say, in Scotland, but we are perfectly well able to see, so far as the prevention of logrolling and so forth is concerned, which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, mentioned, that forty Members require a good deal more log-rolling than even eighty. The jobbery—to use a word which is perhaps rather wide—[No!]—well, I will use the word—the jobbery which would go on to keep forty Members in a good temper would have to be considerable. It
994
has been very hard work to keep eighty in a good temper, and noble Lords opposite can guess for themselves the trouble they will have with forty.
Another thing which Scotsmen are profoundly annoyed about is this. The county in which I live has been for some time of an unmistakable Radical tendency. The people there do not like the hereditary system under which noble Lords come to this House with power to sit and vote, with no other mandate except that of the hereditary system. Noble Lords opposite, as well as noble Lords on this side of the House, are well aware how unpopular this House is in Scotland, and the people round about me are pained and surprised to a degree that the Government should not have seen their way to reconstitute this House long ago. They are beginning to see that they will have to look for a democratic Second Chamber to the Tory Party. It has taken them some time to believe their eves, but they are coming to see the truth at last; and I, for one, rejoice—and holding the principles that they do I am quite sure noble Lords opposite rejoice also—that the time will soon arrive when those who wish to hold a seat in this House will have to seek the confidence of a constituency.
I have already too long detained your Lordships, but I do not think that I can put the last words I have to say better than as coming from the same source. The people of Scotland, so far as those whom I know are concerned, feel that this Bill, if it comes into law without assuaging one single difficulty that exists at present, is calculated to infuriate beyond measure the people of Ulster; they feel that it does not tend to mitigate for one moment the difficulties of the present situation; and they are convinced that if you pass this Bill into law you will bring a state of desolation and ruin upon Ireland and shame unspeakable upon our race and our age.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, if I venture for a few moments to occupy the attention of your Lordships' House I should desire in the first place to welcome, as I do most cordially, the intervention of the noble Marquess who has just sat down in the debates of your Lordships' Douse. Many of us will remember with affection his father, and we are glad to see the

995
same qualities which he possessed displayed by his son. If I am permitted in the short compass which is naturally allotted to me in which to make some observations, I desire to do so cordially in the spirit of my noble friend Lord Loreburn, whose lofty appeal to what I may call the larger mind of the country and the broader sympathies of your Lordships' House has, I hope, not fallen entirely upon deaf ears. But I am bound to say that when I, with infinitely less authority, ventured last year to make an appeal in a similar spirit I did so with some hope—not very sanguine, perhaps—that in various quarters a spirit of conciliation and compromise would exist which might lead to a settlement of this almost hereditary difficulty.
We cannot but recognise, however, that the atmosphere, both in this House and outside of it, has not changed for the better in the last year. On the contrary, partisanship has got the upper hand. I am not going to measure the responsibility for that, and to say that it is solely in consequence of the campaign skilfully and arduously conducted by the leaders of Unionist opinion in Ireland. I am willing to admit that the provisions of the Parliament Act, with some of which I personally am not entirely in accord, have shut the door upon discussion, and have not enabled those changes and those suggestions to be made which His Majesty's Government declare they would listen to with favour. It cannot be denied that during the passing of this Bill lately through the House of Commons the attitude of the Government hardly encouraged any proposition to be made in the way of enabling a common platform to be found upon which compromise might have conceivably been evolved. On the contrary, the Second Reading debate was about the only full discussion that took place; and while I am in full accord with my noble friend Lord Loreburn in his demand that some approach should be made from the other side in order to enable Liberal opinion to meet them halfway upon the subject, I think that the first suggestions should come from the People's house, the House of Commons, and not from the House of Lords. The opportunity for those suggestions is not given so fully under the provisions of the Parliament Act as I think ought to have been done, and I am afraid the only prospect that we can look forward to to-day is to some movement outside
996
Parliament, some movement amongst people of moderate opinion who feel that this Irish question must not for all time block the way to progress and hamper the work of Parliament.
I do not suppose there is any one on the Benches opposite who can for a moment imagine that by simply refusing to pass this Bill you are going to settle the Irish question. It is a sort of perennial plant which unfortunately is to be found constantly reasserting its vigour and continuously interfering with and obstructing the legislative machine; and I would invite the Unionist Party to consider whether it would not be possible to make propositions on two or three points which amongst moderate men are really the only dividing ones in this great question—with regard to finance, with regard to the position of the three North-east Provinces of Ulster—and whether on the lines of the plan of Lord MacDonnell, who knows as much about the administration of Ireland as anybody in this House, it would not be possible to give administrative freedom to a certain extent to the three Northern Counties, which represent in a large measure the objections of Irish Unionist opinion to this Bill.
In the ranks of the Irish Party there is not to be found complete agreement and satisfaction with regard to this Bill on the score of finance. I have followed with great care the discussions which have taken place in the various Irish newspapers upon this question; and I may go a step further and say that recently during a visit to America I took pains to acquaint myself with the sentiment of the Irish element in America—a very important element, too—and I found on that particular topic that they were far from satisfied with the provisions of this Bill. And even in the Irish Nationalist Party itself there is very grave apprehension as to the financial future of Ireland under the Bill which is now before you. Consequently I say on that point, and also with regard to the future government of Ulster, it is possible, in my judgment, to arrive at some method of concilation by which a compromise might be arranged. This would be a matter for satisfaction to all Parties, and would enable Home Rule and the difficulties which surround that subject to be removed from our Parliamentary discussions.

997
I would now like to address myself for one moment to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess in that temperate and admirable manner in which be always performs the duties of the leadership of the Party opposite. The noble Marquess, as it seems to me, in appealing for the Dissolution of Parliament forgets that he is on very very slender ice indeed. I have only to recall the speech just delivered by the noble Marquess opposite, in which lie called attention to the fact that if there is one direction more than another in regard to which this House is weak in the popular estimation it is because of its hereditary and unreformed character. Yet in the name of a House, hereditary and unreformed, you are going to demand the Dissolution of Parliament!If there is one thing which the people of this country would resent, in my judgment, more than they did the case of the Budget it would be the demand by an unreformed House of Lords for a Dissolution on the Home Rule Bill. At the time of the Budget the people said by their verdict that that was a demand quite outside your functions and yet here you are again repeating it to-day. Whether it be a Dissolution or a referendum, the same argument applies proceeding from such a source.
So far as the referendum is concerned, I entirely assent to the general principle of the referendum. I believe it was a profound mistake on the part of the Government not to have introduced it in some form or another into the provisions of the Parliament Act, and I think the day is not far distant, when the reform of this House is undertaken, as I dare say it will be, by the Party opposite, when my friends will sincerely regret that a form of referendum which would give them some security was not inserted in the Parliament Act. Although I should not be able under any circumstances to agree with such a proposition as is set forth in the Amendment proceeding from the House of Lords, I think the Government must remember that the day is very shortly coining when the possibility of an appeal to the people will have to be seriously entertained. When this Bill has passed through all its stages and is on the point of becoming law, the Executive of this country will have to ask themselves this question, Have we got behind us the moral sanction of the people of this country? Unless they have that, are they
998
really entitled to place upon the Statute Book a measure which is undoubtedly of a most vital character affecting the whole Constitution? Are they entitled to place such a measure upon the Statute Book without an absolute assurance on the part of the country of their support?
I venture to say that in order to obtain such an assurance from the country, there are only two courses open to the Administration. You cannot rely upon articles in newspapers. We all know how those are edited and produced. You can rely even less upon the effect of public meetings. We all of us have taken part in public meetings, and know how easily they are adjusted to our view. You can only rely on one test—I admit it is au incomplete one—the test of by-elections, and by-elections have incontestably gone of late against the Government. It may be said, and I know it is said, "Oh, but the result of such and such a by-election was not due to Home Rule; it was because the Tory candidate was a particularly popular man." Or it will be said, and generally is said, I believe, in this connection, "It was entirely due to the Insurance Act." Another excuse given—it is the more modern one—is that it was due to the revelations of the Marconi incident. It will always be put down to anything else but Home Rule. Consequently I admit that the test of by-elections is not altogether a satisfactory one, but it is the only one which is open to an Administration; and I say that the greatest possible responsibility will weigh upon the Executive of this country in May next year when they have to consider the prospect of this Bill becoming law in the teeth of the opposition—I do not wish either to exaggerate or depreciate it, but it is undoubtedly a formidable opposition—of Ulster, and in the teeth of the fact that there you have a large body of men who, to my great regret, have already declared their intention of resisting by force the passage of this Bill into law.
I ask this House, and my friends on this side in particular, to make every effort in the next six months to bring about some settlement, if possible. Do not let us wait until next May arrives with the dire prospect before us of conflict on whichever side you look. I would

999
also say to the Unionist Party, If a compromise is not arrived at you will have this fatal legacy of Home Rule cast on your shoulders in time to come, and you will have to deal with a problem which has proved so far insoluble and which I fear will be no more easy for you to effectively deal with than it has been for the Liberal Party. My belief is that a satisfactory system of Home Rule can only be obtained by mutual consent and by give and take between all Parties. It is only, I believe, by a proposal for Home Rule so established that you will obtain complete tranquility in Ireland, and it is on these grounds that I venture once more to make this appeal to your Lordships' House.
LORD FARNHAM: My Lords, one point has been made in this debate to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention. It is the statement made by the noble Marquess who leads the House that the only opposition to Home Rule in Ulster is due to hatred of the Roman Catholic Church. He led your Lordships to believe that the men of Ulster had no principles and were only sentimental bigots. I protest against this statement of the case. If the noble Marquess had said that one of the chief reasons why Ulstermen oppose Home Rule is the mistrust which they have of the Roman Catholic Church, then perhaps I might have agreed with him. The noble Marquess went on to say—
"One of the most remarkable features in our national character is the intense Protestantism of these three portions of the United Kingdom and, I do not hesitate to say, the mistrust which the average citizen in this country feels of the Roman Catholic Church."
If there is mistrust in this country of the Roman Catholic Church, how much more so should there be mistrust of that Church in Ireland, where the Protestants are in such a great minority. In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is a very powerful one, and it has used that power to interfere with and to try to control purely lay and secular affairs, and from time to time it has even tried to interfere with the civil and religious rights of Protestants. Therefore, my Lords, I maintain that it is very natural that the Protestants should object to a Parliament which would be, at any rate for a time, under the control of the Roman Catholic Church.
1000
It is the ambition of the men of Ulster to live at peace and contentment with their Roman Catholic neighbours and friends, and that both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants alike may enjoy to the full their civil and religious liberties. We maintain that we can only do this so long as we are both governed by an impartial Imperial Parliament, a Parliament which is bound to uphold the civil and religious liberties of all denominations. So far, then, it may be correct to say that one of the reasons of Ulster's opposition to Home Rule is mistrust of the Roman Catholic Church. But is it to be said that that is the only reason? Is it nothing to the men of Ulster that they are bound to this United Kingdom by ties of kin and of blood? Is it nothing to the men of Ulster that they were planted there by your forefathers to uphold the honour of England and civil and religious liberties in Ireland? Is it nothing to the men of Ulster that they have thrived and have built great cities and become rich under the Union and with the help of Imperial credit? Is it nothing to Ulster that she has fought beside the armies of the Empire, and that she is now to be handed over to those that have fought against the Empire? Is it nothing to Ulster that she prefers prosperity to the bankruptcy which she is promised under the Government of Ireland Bill? I ask, Is it a fair statement of the case to say that Ulster's opposition to Home Rule is only sentimental bigotry? The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, tried to throw doubt upon the loyalty of the Unionist Party to His Majesty. Speaking for Ulster, at all events, I will only say this, that if the noble Earl had been on any platform in Ulster last Saturday and had tried to say one word of disrespect of His Majesty he would have been totally unrecognisable in less than thirty seconds.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, emphasised with great persistency that there was as much demand for Home Rule now as ever. If there is, I ask where were the demonstrations of joy in Ireland when the Home Rule Bill passed the House Of Commons? And more to the point still, where were those demonstrations of anger that one would have expected when this House refused to pass it on the last occasion? The truth about this matter comes to us in a flash.

1001
It comes to us, not from any Unionist speaker, but from a Nationalist district councillor, who, when he was trying to support the claims to the vice-chairmanship of that body of a man whose only crime was that he had attended a Unionist meeting, said—
"There is scarcely a Roman Catholic in Ireland with£100 in his pocket who is not a Unionist at heart. It is the moneyed man who is the Unionist, and it is only the man of straw who is a Nationalist."
That remark was made by a Nationalist. We loyalists in Ireland welcome heartily the Amendment which the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House has moved; for we at all events realise that the time for discussing the details of this Bill is past, and we are far too busy making preparations for the future.
As far as your Lordships' House is concerned. I venture to think that to ask your Lordships to discuss a Bill the principles of which you have already entirely and emphatically repudiated is very near becoming an insult; in fact, I may say it is almost the insult which follows the injury of the Parliament Act. At all events, I think that it is idle to discuss a Bill which sets up a Parliament in Dublin with an Executive responsible to it, as the loyalists in Ulster have repeatedly, clearly, and emphatically informed both the Government and the electors of the United Kingdom that they will at no time and under no circumstances submit to a Government of this nature, or, I may add, to any form of Government which deprives them of the right of being governed by the Imperial Parliament itself. We have further repeatedly and emphatically declared that we will meet any attempt which may be made to govern us by an Executive responsible to an Irish Parliament by armed resistance. And, my Lords, in this firm determination we have the support of thousands of people in England, in Scotland, and in Wales, who have promised us their active assistance, to say, nothing of the large support we are receiving from the Colonies all over the Empire; and I hope that there may be many who are seated on this side of your Lordships' House who will be found ready and willing to come over and assist us. We in Ulster owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who spoke so strongly on our behalf
1002
yesterday, and who is chairman of the British League for the Support of Ulster. This determination can mean only one of two things—either the repeal of the Home Rule Bill as soon as it is placed on the Statute-book, or else the employment of Imperial troops to shoot down that armed resistance; and that such a state of affairs as that could be brought about by any Government without first consulting the will of the people is, to my mind, absolutely unthinkable.
The Government have been asked repeatedly, and I hope we shall get an answer to the question, What are you going to do? The country has a right to a plain statement, and it is due to the Government's own supporters who are voting for this Bill that they should get a plain statement with regard to this matter. I ails quite certain in my own mind of what the Government would like to do. They would like to continue with a policy of drift. They would like to be able to pay their debts to Mr. Redmond and place this Bill on the Statute Book, but not to have to enforce it themselves. They would like to remain in power as long as they possibly can, and then go to the country with the secret hope that another Government might come in and clear up the muddle which they have created. I say that any Ministry which could countenance such a policy as this would deserve nothing short of impeachment, and at any rate the declaration of Sir Edward Carson on Saturday must have given the Government a rude awakening, for if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book they now know that Ulster will have to be reckoned with at once. A great deal has been made of the four counties in Ulster. Mr. Redmond said that four counties must not dictate to twenty-eight. No, my Lords, four counties may not dictate to twenty-eight, but it appears that Mr. Redmond can dictate to a British Ministry to break up the Constitution and drive the loyal Protestant population out of a Protestant kingdom and hand them over to a Roman Catholic Parliament. It is no question of four counties dictating to twenty-eight. It is a question of over a quarter of the population of Ireland claiming a right, and we do claim the right, to remain as we are—an integral part of the British Empire. That, my Lords, is all that Ulster asks, and I repeat again that nothing but the employment of Imperial troops will ever drive us out.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate I do so with a great deal of diffidence, firstly because it is the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, and, secondly, because the subject we are debating is of such magnitude that it is difficult to compress in the short space of time available what one would like to say about it. I have had the honour for twelve years past of being a public servant in the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, which appointment, I am sorry to say, I have had to resign owing to other reasons, but I am glad to be able to retain a certain connection with that Department in a purely advisory capacity. During those twelve years I have had an opportunity of seeing what has been done for the betterment of the country.
The noble Marquess who moved the Amendment quoted a speech by Mr. Birrell, in which he spoke of the prosperity of the country, and particularly stating that Ireland at the present day was more prosperous than any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. With that I can quite agree from what I have seen of the country myself. But there are reasons for that prosperity. The reasons are various. We have had during the past twelve or fifteen years various Acts of Parliament which have granted to Ireland a better form of local government and better education in every respect; the Department of Agriculture has been instituted, and the Land Purchase Act has been established; added to this, we have had a voluntary movement in the country—the Agricultural Organisation Society, founded by Sir Horace Plunket. All these things have tended towards the betterment of the country in every possible respect, but during the past three or four years those new Departments are finding that they are coming to a standstill. The noble Marquess said, "Leave well alone." If we stay as we are, I fear we shall stagnate, because every new Department which is created finds, after a short time of working, that it is absolutely essential that certain legislation, it may be small or great, is necessary for it to carry out its beneficial work. I should like to give an instance of this in connection with the Agricultural Department. In 1909 I was a member of a Committee which sat to go into the question of the Irish butter trade in relation to its standing in British
1004
markets. The Report of that Committee was presented at a very early date and recommended legislation. Where is that legislation? There is no Act of Parliament on the Statute Book as recommended by that Committee. True, a Bill has passed through this House and has been lying on the Table of the House of Commons now for over two years; but the effect of that Bill not having passed through Parliament has resulted—I am quite certain of my figures—in a loss to the Irish dairy farmers of three-quarters of a million sterling. Such Bills as those may be small in their way, but they mean a great deal to the farmers of Ireland.
A further point with regard to some form of Legislative Assembly being necessary in Ireland. I can give an illustration. When the Dublin Corporation wished to extend their boundaries they were compelled to go to enormous expense in bringing witnesses over here to both Houses of Parliament, and in bringing over their own solicitors and their own barristers, and employing solicitors and barristers over here as well. All that enormous expense could have been saved had there been an Assembly in Dublin to deal with such a matter. Assuming for one moment that devolution on a system outlined by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) was established for this country, I should like to ask the Peers from Ulster this question. When we have a Parliament or a Legislative Assembly in Ireland, in Scotland, in England, and in Wales, to which Parliament will Ulster adhere? Another point which has been frequently made in speeches up and down the country is that Ireland is not fit for Home Rule. I think that every Peer from Ireland who is here will agree with me that that is an insult to the country. Why should Ireland not be fit for Home Rule? If we are not fit to govern ourselves, surely we are not fit to send representatives to any Parliament.
Another point of which we hear much is that the representatives of the Irish Party in the House of Commons, the moment they get Home Rule, are going to deliver Ulster into the hands of "carrion crows," to be demolished and driven out of the country. Surely the first object of the powers that be when that new Parliament is established will be to make a success of Home Rule. They have heard for so many years that

1005
Home Rule is bound to be a failure that it must be their one aim and object, whoever may be in power, to make as complete a success of Home Rule as possible. We have often heard, again, that Ireland is disloyal; we heard it last night. I was present in Dublin on the occasions when Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, and his late Majesty King Edward, and our present Sovereign, made their entries into Dublin, and I defy any portion of the United Kingdom or our Colonies to give them a reception equal to that which they obtained there. I was sorry to hear the word "disloval" from the noble Marquess last night, because nobody knows better than he does the marvellous display of loyalty shown by the Irish troops in South Africa during the Boer War, for which the late Queen created the Irish Guards as a memento of the wonderful display made by the Irish troops.
I think that Ireland is frequently treated far too seriously in some respects, and not seriously enough in others. I should like to give a small instance of the feelings which exist among the people of Ireland to illustrate how frequently we are taken too seriously in many of the matters which are discussed in this country, such as boycotting, etc. During the South African War certain members of a Militia regiment had attended a meeting in the South of Ireland before proceeding to their troopship which was to carry them to the scat of war. At the meeting a resolution had been passed in favour of the President of the South African Republic at that time, and the men were returning to barracks. During their journey back one of them remarked to the other that he had not seen a fellow comrade of the same regiment present at the meeting. "Never mind," said the other man, "We did not see Dooley there. But we will go out and fight the Boers, and when we come back we will boycott Dooley."
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am sure I am speaking the sentiments of every one of your Lordships in saying how glad we were to hear again the voice of Lord Loreburn in our debates. We entertain a very friendly and admiring recollection of the noble and learned Earl when he occupied the Woolsack, and although he did not address us this evening with all the awe-inspiring panoply of that high office, we rejoiced to find his voice
1006
just as impressive and effective as it was when from that quarter of the House he used to preach to us poor erring mortals on this side of the House of righteousness and temperance and judgment to come.
My Lords, the noble and learned Earl, in the opening part of his speech, dealt with power and effect with the evils of the present political situation in this country. He gave what I think we shall all agree to have been an acute and profound diagnosis of some, at any rate, of the ills of the body politic. On this side of the House there is no disposition to disagree with what he said; I only hope that his remarks in that context will be interpreted as no doubt he meant them to be interpreted by his late colleagues on the opposite Bench. The noble and learned Earl then went on to give a profession of his own political faith. There does not exist a man in this House who would be rash enough to dispute the sincerity of that utterance. Thirdly, the noble Earl dealt with the case of Ulster. And, lastly, he concluded with an appeal—an impressive and even a moving appeal—to all parts of your Lordships' House, and notably to those who sit on these Benches. My Lords, it is with the two latter parts of the noble Earl's speech that I will ask your permission to deal.
When I heard the noble and learned Earl talking about Ulster this evening I own I wondered why it was that the weight of authority and depth of emotion which were shown in the concluding passages of his speech should not be directed to understanding, if not to championing, the cause of Ulster, rather than to misrepresenting, and even to flouting it in your Lordships' House. I could not help thinking, if Ulster had been in the Balkan Peninsula, or in Armenia, how powerful an advocate we should have found in the noble and learned Earl of those persons who, after all, wish for little more than to retain their national unity, who desire to protect their civil and religious freedom, and who refuse, as many of those communities whom the noble Earl has championed have also refused, to accept a yoke that they mistrust and abhor. But, my Lords, in this case geography is stronger than sentiment with the noble Earl—I think I may even invert the common statement and say that water is thicker than blood. And because the Ulstermen

1007
happen to be only on the other side of the St. George's Channel instead of in the basin of the Mediterranean, and because the enemy they have to fear is not the Old Turk but the Ancient Hibernian, the streams of sympathy of the noble and learned Earl are entirely dried up.
I have been very much struck in the debates in both Houses of Parliament with the apparent inability of members of the opposite Party to understand the case of Ulster. The only Minister who seems to me to have shown any sense of the reality of the position is the Irish Secretary, Mr. Birrell, and in his delightful speeches there is always an element of jest which rather diminishes the gravity of his admissions. Let me take the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. When we were discussing the Bill in January last the noble Marquess spoke of the Ulster case as resting on the massive rock of religious prejudice. And last night he went even a little further than that in saying that the only principle by which the Ulstermen were animated was hatred of the Roman Catholic Church. With all respect I think that was a very regrettable observation and a very unjust aspersion to cast upon many of those who reside in Ulster. I do not deny for a moment that the fear of religious intolerance, the dread of religious persecution, may enter into their feelings. I dare say that is the case; and if it be so perhaps their apprehensions are not unjustified by much that has taken place in the past and even by a good deal that is taking place now. But when the noble Marquess went on to say that he could conceive of no principle behind the attitude of Ulster, was he not going rather too far? My Lords, what is principle? A principle may be a profound and passionate conviction as distinguished from motives of mere expediency, or a principle may be a fundamental consideration or group of considerations which are based, or believed by those who entertain them to be based, on elementary truth. Whichever interpretation you adopt, surely you cannot deny that the Ulster case rests upon a principle eminently intelligible and unmistakable.
What is it that Ulstermen are standing for? The noble and learned Earl in his picture of Ulster, would have us believe that they are unseemly and unruly and unreasonable men. Surely that is not the case. They are refusing, so far as lies in their power, to be deprived of that par-
1008
titular aspect of British citizenship which consists in being under the direct control of the Imperial Parliament. They ask to be allowed to maintain their civil and religious liberties. I do not believe that they want to interfere with the rest of Ireland. The noble and learned Earl seemed to imply that they did. So far as I know, they are willing that the south and west and the centre of Ireland should have their own system of self-government if they desire it—that they should govern themselves in their own way. What they do ask is that the rest of Ireland should not be allowed to govern them; that they should be left as they are. The form of Government which they desire to retain is that under which they have prospered and waxed strong; and, my Lords, surely that appeal is one to which it is hard for us to turn a deaf ear, considering that it is the form of government which we ourselves enjoy.
In another respect it seems to me that Ulster is standing upon a principle which your Lordships cannot fail to acknowledge, for it is the principle which the Government themselves have made the basis of this Bill. What is the principle of this Bill? Is it not surely that the voice of the local majority shall prevail? Surely the whole of your case is that what the south and west and centre of Ireland demand by the voice of their representatives, by the votes of their electors expressed over a series of years, we are bound to concede. On exactly the same grounds the inhabitants of the four counties in the north-east corner of Ireland ask that their local majority should be considered too. The analogy is really very very close. Their feelings about the matter are equally strong; they have been consistently entertained over an equal length of time; they are similarly expressed by their own votes and by their Members in the House of Commons. And when the noble and learned Earl seems to think that there is nothing in the case of Ulster that severs it from the rest of Ireland, that the smaller unit ought to be content to be submerged in the larger and accept contentedly whatever is given to the latter—I hope I do not misinterpret him; that is an argument with which we are very familiar—is it not fair to point out in reply that the conditions are entirely different? In Ulster there is separateness of race, of religion, of material condition, of industrial occupations, and of experience and traditions. In fact, there are in Ulster

1009
all those features which, if they were found to exist, as they are found to exist, in other parts of the Empire or in other parts of the world, are always accepted, and by none more than by noble Lords opposite, as entitling the community which presents them to especial consideration and respect. If I may turn again for a moment to the European analogy, Why do noble Lords and hon. Members on the Liberal side wish to give back Crete to Greece, to carve out a new State in Albania, to divide Macedonia into a number of provinces—except for the very reason that justifies Ulster in demanding separate treatment in the present instance?
But when the Government are confronted with the case of Ulster they give no reply. The noble and learned Earl spoke in one part of his speech about the impenetrable silence that was being observed on this side of the House. Perhaps later on I may just lift the fringe of the curtain of which he complains, but if it is a question of impenetrable silence surely that silence is to be found on the Government side. To the appeals, the demands, of Ulster in this debate there has been given not a word of sympathy, not a word of encouragement, and, I might almost say, not a word of understanding. Indeed, I think it is rather more than that. I remember that on a previous occasion the noble and learned Viscount who at present sits on the Woolsack rather derided the sentiments on the part of Ulster, because, he said, they could not be permanent. And last night we had the noble Marquess the Leader of the House chaffing Sir Edward Carson and the. Provisional Government which it is threatened will be set up in Ulster on the ground that there will be no taxes to collect. I venture to say, however, that the seriousness of the situation consists not in the depth of perversity or the degree of misunderstanding on the part of His Majesty's Government. They may be serious enough. All Governments are from time to time stupid and blind and deaf, and experience shows that the older they get in their career the stupider they become. We could not have a better illustration than this debate. But the serious thing is not the attitude of His Majesty's Government, but the consequences which that attitude must entail. I observe that on this point the noble and learned Earl had not a word to say.
1010
Let me attempt to forecast what those consequences will be. Supposing that His Majesty's Government refuse to grant a General Election, not now hut at any time before this Bill becomes law under the Parliament Act. Supposing they persist in their present attitude, and that the Bill, after a third repetition of the tragical farce through which we are now going, comes into law some time in the course of next summer. There was one suggestion made by a noble Lord opposite on this point which I must be allowed to notice—I refer to Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. I did not myself hear the remark, but it has been quoted to me as having been made when I was for a moment outside the House. The noble Lord, speaking no doubt with some authority, seemed to contemplate an arrangement under which a General Election should not take place before the Bill is passed into law, but after; that after the assent of the King has been obtained the effective operation of the Bill might be postponed—I believe he suggested the postponement of the appointed day so that the election might take place before the Irish Parliament is set up. I hope nobody will be deluded for one moment into thinking that that is the sort of General Election for which we plead. We want a General Election before the Royal Assent is given either to confirm your judgment if you are right, or to prevent a ghastly mistake if you are wrong. A General Election after the Royal Assent had been given would be a very different, a very futile, nay, I will go further and say a very dangerous, thing. If it were to ratify your judgment the result to yourselves would be the same; but if, on the other hand, it were to repudiate your policy you would then be found guilty of one of the greatest crimes ever committed in history, and upon us on this side of the House would be thrown the intolerable burden of repealing your Act and of clearing up the abominable mess which you had made. I hope no one of your Lordships will imagine for a moment that that is the sort of election we want, or, so far as we have a voice in the matter, that we would take.
The noble Marquess said last night—it was part of his argument for disparaging the gravity of the situation—that it takes two parties to make civil war. He seems to contemplate that if the Government do nothing, nothing will happen. But supposing Ulster carries out its programme

1011
which was foreshadowed in Belfast by Sir Edward Carson a few days ago; supposing they set up tins Provisional Government and usurp executive authority in Ireland—I am not saying whether they would be right or wrong in doing it, I say supposing they do it—whether they collect taxes or not, supposing they snap their fingers at the Parliament you are going to create in Dublin, if it is set up, and supposing, as a noble Lord said just now, aid in money and men pours into Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom and I dare say of the Empire—then I ask, in all humility and seriousness, What are you who are in office going to do?
We have been asked to-night to state our policy. What is your policy? We are in opposition. What are you going to do when this situation arises? You cannot afford to sit still; you will never solve a situation like that by mere masterly inactivity. Sooner or later you will be compelled to take action, however much you may dislike it, and when that day comes and the inevitable collision takes place, whether it be on a more violent or on a less violent occasion, do you think that public opinion will support you then? No, my Lords, I believe it would not. I believe that the people of this country will be very 10th to condemn those whose only disloyalty it will be to have been excessive in their loyalty to the King. I do not think that the people of this country will call those "rebels" whose only form of rebellion it is to insist on remaining under the Imperial Parliament under which we all live. And depend upon it when the first blow is struck—and my argument is that it will be struck—when the first blow is struck you will kindle a flame that will rush through the country like a forest fire and will not stop until you have been consumed. Here again may I, in passing, allude for a moment to something that fell from Lord Ashby St. Ledgers in the course of his remarks just now. I am told that he took exception to our statement that we had been told British bayonets would not be used to put down Ulster, and said that His Majesty's Government would certainly be prepared to take whatever measures might be necessary to enforce the law.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Those were not my words.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: They were given me as the substance of what the noble Lord said.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I said that no Government could divest itself of the necessity of carrying on civil government.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not only did the noble Lord make a statement of the intentions of His Majesty's Government, but he impugned what was said on this side of the House. The authority for what was said here was Mr. Birrell himself. I have the extract from the speech delivered by Mr. Birrell—
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but he was not in the House when I spoke. I did not impugn what was said on the other side of the House. I said the noble Marquess was confident that force would not be used, and I made no comment on that.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think it is very desirable that the point should be made clear. I have not the slightest desire to misrepresent the noble Lord, but it is of extreme importance that we should be clear on the point. I am discussing what measures His Majesty's Government will take as a last resort in Ulster, and I feel compelled to quote the words of Mr. Birrell in a speech he made at Warrington on February 13 last. He said—
"As for shooting them down, who intends to shoot them down? They say, 'If the soldiers of the King go marching through Belfast mowing them down with their horrible artillery, is that to be done to the Protestants of Belfast?' The answer is, 'No; we have no intention of doing that.'"
When this significant pledge was quoted in the House of Commons, Mr. Campbell put this question—
"I ask the Prime Minister does he agree with and assent to those propositions?"
and the Prime Minister is reported in Hansard as indicating assent. It is very important to bear in mind that this assurance about the use, or rather the non-use, of British bayonets in Ulster is given to us with the authority of the Irish Secretary, ratified by the assent of the Prime Minister.

1013
If these are the dangers that lie before us, then we point out to you that the whole, or at any rate the greater part, of them you can escape by means either of a General Election or a referendum, before the catastrophe can happen. I know the objection that will be made to that. You will say that Ulster will not accept the verdict. Perhaps that may be so; Ulster is the mistress of her own conduct. I express no opinion upon the point; I have no influence in the matter. But, my Lords, the difference will be this. If you are driven to coerce Ulster without a General Election you will have to contend with public opinion, which may ultimately be so overwhelming that it will drive you from power. If, on the other hand, you have a General Election, not necessarily now but at any time before this Bill passes into law under the Parliament Act, you will, if you win, deprive Ulster of the moral support of the Unionist Party; you will have public opinion behind you; you will be able to say that your policy is that of the United Kingdom, and although your task in Ireland will not be easy—I dare say it will be very difficult—it will be ten thousand times easier than it will be if you persist in your present tactics. On more than one occasion I remember having heard the noble Viscount who is sitting opposite me, and who is going to follow me, say that the greatest need in Eastern polities is imagination. I agree with him. But imagination is no question of longitude. Imagination is just as much wanted or rather is more wanted at the present moment in Western politics than in Eastern. We want a little imagination applied by the Government to the case of Ulster, and if the noble Viscount could assemble his colleagues and give them a little homily on the virtues of imagination in Irish politics he might acid one more to his many services to his country and to his Party, by saving the former from disaster and the latter from an atrocious crime.
The noble Earl, Lord Loreburn, interposed a question which I think it only respectful to him and the House to attempt to answer. He asked the very pertinent question whether, in the event of a General Election, we would abide by the result. I think he must have failed to hear what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, last evening. The noble Marquess said that if a General Election is given us he was prepared to abide—and, of course, he was speaking for the Party—
1014
he was prepared to abide by the result and govern himself accordingly. But the noble Earl went a little beyond that and asked us to say whether, in such a contingency, we would be prepared—I think these were his words—"to support" this Bill. It is perhaps rather too much to ask us to support a Bill on which we hold the views we are expressing in this House. That is going beyond what I think any man in this House has a right to ask or expect. But my noble friend behind me does authorise me to say that in such a contingency as I am describing—and in the event of the result of the General Election being to indicate substantial approval of the measure of His Majesty's Government, he will be prepared to advise your Lordships to go into Committee on the Bill and endeavour to remove some of the blemishes and undesirable features by which it is characterised, and to ask all parties in the House to join in the endeavour to shape it into a more passable and palatable measure. That, I hope, is an answer to the question which was asked by the noble Earl.
Now one word about the case which we put before the House. Yesterday the noble Marquess, in a speech of characteristic moderation, stated the case for a General Election before this Bill is passed into law. Again let me say that he was not pleading for a General Election here and now; he was pleading for a General Election at any moment between now and next summer. It is not possible for any one to argue that that was an arrogant or unconstitutional claim. I think the noble Marquess himself said that he advocated it as a democratic appeal, and undoubtedly there can be nothing much more democratic than a wish to consult, and defer to, the will of the people. Moreover, my Lords, it is open to me to point out that it would be a carrying out of the traditional conception of its duties by your Lordships' House. In all the storms and controversies of the past few years I have never heard any one, not the most extreme advocate of the privileges of your Lordships' House, claim that it was any part of your duty at any stage to defy the will of the people. We may not always have interpreted it successfully, although I am bound to say there have been occasions when we have read it a good deal more successfully than have noble Lords opposite. Sometimes also we have been

1015
the means of securing the expression of that will. But never on any occasion that I can recollect, when once expressed, has your Lordships' House refused to defer to it. We ask that there should be a reference to the people now or within the next nine months, not, as Lord Beauchamp appeared to think, as a protest against the Parliament Act—although our feelings about that piece of legislation remain entirely unchanged—but because we sincerely believe that there is a genuine and legitimate doubt, widely entertained by others than ourselves, as to whether this particular Bill is approved by the electors of the country.
I am not going at this period of the debate to raise again the old and stale question of your mandate at the last General Election. I do not propose to immerse myself in the muddy waters of that barren controversy. But, whatever your mandate was, whether the people did or did not believe when they returned you to power that the introduction of a Home Rule Bill was going to be the immediate sequel, the necessary consequence, of the Parliament Act—about two points there can be not the slightest doubt. In the first place, the people did not know what was to be the character of the Bill to be introduced, because you did not know it yourselves; and, secondly, they had not the slightest idea that His Majesty's Government might be driven within the space of two or three years to coerce Ulster by force of arms. Whatever the nature of the mandate you had, you certainly had no mandate for civil war. Had it been known, or even dreamt, that such would be the consequence, the result of the last General Election might have been very different indeed.
Even now, can you point to any ray of enthusiasm for your policy? I welcome very much the candid utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Weardale, on the subject of recent by-elections. He seems to be a most careful and, if I may say so, a most accurate student of these phenomena in contemporary politics, and I am surprised he did not correct a shocking lapse made by Lord Beauchamp in his remarks last night. The noble Earl gave us the figures of the various by-elections since the Home Rule Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in June last year. He said that the Liberal votes cast totalled
1016
120,000 to 105,000 Unionist votes, and from that he drew conclusions most encouraging to himself. My Lords, it is a pity the noble Earl did not pursue his researches a little further back and contrast those figures with the figures in the same constituencies at the last General Election. He would have found that on that occasion the Liberal votes were 123,000 and the Unionist votes 93,000. So that since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill the Liberals have lost nearly 3,000, whilst the Unionists have gained 12,000 votes—a Unionist gain of 13 per cent. and a Radical loss of 2 per cent. That does not perhaps afford ground for any extravagant degree of enthusiasm. The utmost that noble Lords opposite can say for their policy is that in the country it is regarded with general apathy. But apathy is more commonly regarded as a mark of indifference or ignorance than of active affection.
It is quite true that the country is apathetic; it is apathetic about a good many more things than Home Rule. It is apathetic about the whole position of Parliament; it is apathetic about the condition of the House of Commons; and it is profoundly apathetic about the present occupants of the Ministerial Bench. This apathy affects the whole of our politics. It is eating the heart out of our public life. The question I would ask is, Would that apathy survive the firing of the first bullet in Ireland? I think it would be replaced by something very different. It is precisely because we want to avoid the dangerous excitement that might succeed this apathy in the event of such a contingency, because we want to enlighten ourselves upon the real state of the public mind, because we want to prevent the disaster of civil war, and not because we want to enter a belated protest against the Parliament Act, that we plead for this General Election of which I have spoken.
I think I have made clear our position in regard to what the noble Earl said on the question of a General Election. He used very forcible reasons for indicating that a General Election could not fairly be asked, and would not be likely to be given, now. I agree with him. But I hope I do not strain his remarks unduly far, or misinterpret what was in his mind, if I deduce both from his words and his manner the conclusion that in his opinion a General Election is not an unreasonable

1017
thing to ask, and is a thing which we may, perhaps, not unfairly expect to see. I believe myself that a General Election will come, because, for the reasons I have given, it cannot permanently be refused. You may refuse, of course, to consider it now. I do not suppose any of us imagine that the noble Viscount who will follow me will indicate the smallest sympathy with the proposal I am putting forward in so far as it relates to the present position of affairs. But, my Lords, circumstances change. The situation is developing every day; the position will become more acute, and it may very well be that between now and next May you may take a very different view. When you realise that by a General Election before this Bill comes into law, if it is favourable to you, you will escape the awful odium of the risk of civil war and of coercing Ulster with the opinion of half the country against you, while if it is unfavourable to you you will escape the consequences of a most appalling blunder, then I think it not unlikely that the still small voice of reason will be heard in louder accents than we at present hear it, and that you may give a different reply. I confess I hope it may be so.
If what we all have in view—and there is no man in your Lordships' House who can fail to be struck by a certain similarity of tenor in most of the speeches on both sides of the House—if what we want is a contented and pacified Ireland, an Ireland continuing to move along the road of industrial and material progress on which during the last few years she has gone so far, then surely we must all deplore any course, whether it be dictated by false amour proper or by political expediency, that would light again in that country the baleful fires of religious animosity or secular strife. You say—and we believe what you say—that you are doing your best to allay one set of political animosities. Our point is that in trying to do that you are kindling another set of animosities fiercer and more alarming. You are always appealing in your speeches to the sense of fellow-feeling, of common patriotism, and national pride which exists amongst Irishmen in all parts of the world, and you look to that feeling to bring Irishmen of all classes together after the strife. May I venture to say it would have been better if you had appealed to that feeling and invited that co-operation at a rather earlier stage. You have made the fatal mistake of beginning at
1018
the wrong end. Your Bill is not a national settlement in the sense that it would remove the sores of an entire nation; its incurable fault, which vitiates it, is that it is a political settlement to satisfy the views and confirm the ascendancy of one political Party.
The noble and learned Earl, in a part of his speech which I confess I did not very clearly follow, seemed to think that the next move—even the present move—lies with us. He indicated the necessity of a comprehensive scheme of devolution for all parts of the United Kingdom. He further suggested that it was our business at this moment to produce an alternative scheme for Ireland, between which and the Government scheme the country ought to be asked to choose. I am loth to accuse the noble and learned Earl of any obscurity of thought, but does he really mean that it is the duty of the Opposition to formulate at this juncture a comprehensive scheme of devolution for the whole of the British Isles when his Majesty's Government, with all their convictions and opportunities, have failed to approach the fringe of such a scheme? And does he further think it is our duty, on the narrower field of Irish politics, to excogitate and find some new scheme of our own for dealing with the Irish difficulty? Have we not been told over and over again in this controversy that the Irish Bill holds the field? So it does; and while that is so it is not for us in opposition to set up a rival scheme. I do not know that we have any very warm encouragement in that direction in the experience of the Conference two years ago. I was not a member of that Conference, and I do not know what passed within those closed doors; but I doubt very much whether any great steps were taken to meet us on the part of noble Lords opposite. Whether that was so or not, we all remember that the moment the Conference doors were closed a General Election was sprung upon the country and the Conference was used in every way to our detriment. I say so in language of profound regret, but I believe it to be a statement of fact. Therefore, my Lords, I doubt if the present moment is a very favourable one for the production of new schemes by those who sit in this quaiter of the House.
But of one thing I am certain from the character of the speeches to which we have

1019
listened in this debate, and that is that if the Irish question is to be solved—and I agree that it must be solved—it can only be by the consent, not of two, or three, but of all sections of the Irish community. You may ignore or flout Ulster now, you may coerce her later on, but not until a Party arises in England that strives to persuade, and succeeds in persuading, Ulster will you settle the Irish question. And lastly, my Lords, I should like to say—and this is a point that has been strangely ignored in this discussion—that no solution can or ought to succeed that has not behind it the support of the democracy, not merely of Scotland and Wales, but of England also. You may scoff at the predominant partner if you please, but the predominant partner has a great voice in the matter and is entitled to be heard in the proposed severance. It is not, however, for a reference to the predominant partner alone, but to the whole country, that we appeal, and although His Majesty's Government may turn a deaf ear to that appeal to-day, I venture to think that in the interests of Ireland, in the interests of peace, and in the interests of your own existence, you will ultimately be obliged to concede it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, even when I most differ from the noble Earl opposite I never hear him speak without interest and pleasure. He is certainly one of the most experienced on foreign difficulties and foreign regions, and undoubtedly one of the two or three most accomplished men your Lordships' House possesses. But that be is aware of the peculiarities of Irish conditions I do not for a moment see any reason to think. An analogy between Ireland and the Balkan Peninsula, or between Crete and Ireland, is really one of the most chimerical analogies that I can imagine any statesman inventing. There is not a single point of resemblance between Ulster and Crete, Servia, Macedonia, and so forth. If the noble Earl were well acquainted with all the peculiarities of Ireland, including Ulster, he would have taken a rather different line in some respects from what he has done to-night.
I am sure I should do what the House desires if I address myself, as the noble Earl did, first of all, if not mainly, to Ulster. Nobody in the House has better reason than
1020
myself for knowing the difficulties and complexities of Ulster, because when I was first Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1886, within a few months of my holding that office, I discovered the seriousness of feeling, if it were hostile, in Ulster. The noble Earl talks of bullets; there were bullets, I am afraid, in 1886, Therefore I have never during the whole of this controversy, for the last 25 years, said a word indicating that I regarded the stiff opposition of Ulster to Home Rule as anything like mere "bluff." I have never thought so. The noble Earl says, You need imagination in order to grasp the difficulties of Home Rule and the case of Ulster. Well, I for one, at all events, am not wanting in the power of imaginative grasp of all the sentiments of Scottish Presbyterians and others who are the active political spirits of Ulster. But looking at it as seriously as you please—and you cannot look at it too seriously—are you to allow the difficulties of a settlement that shall include Ulster to override the whole question of our policy in respect of Ireland? It seems to me that that is thorough disproportion, and to take that line now and to look at Ulster as the single deciding element in the whole of this great controversy is a fatal and narrow mistake.
The speech of the noble Earl so far as Ulster goes, if I understood him rightly, pointed in the direction of separate treatment for Ulster. Several of his propositions and some of his language pointed in that direction. There are many arguments against separate treatment, but there is one which stands out. Sir Edward Carson has said more than once and his allies say constantly that their friends in Ulster would not accept separate treatment; that they would not abandon and desert their friends, the Protestant minority in the South of Ireland. Then there are other difficulties. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord (Lord MacDonnell), who has had so much experience in Irish administration, does not see the difficulty of carrying on a separate administration in the North of Ireland, together with an Irish Parliament and an English Parliament. I cannot imagine anything more absolutely impossible. I submit that nobody who was well acquainted with Irish administration would on any account admit that you could work Ireland administratively if you had a separate body, such as the noble Lord described last night, in Ulster, and an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin.

1021
The air is thick with proposals for reconciling Ulster. There is no end to the ingenious devices which well-meaning people invent in order to get round the Ulster difficulty. There is only one defect about all these ingenious devices, and that is that they are all passionately resisted both by one Party and the other. I do not believe there is a single one of these devices which I read about in the newspapers and hear about in conversation which both the Unionists in Ulster and the Nationalists elsewhere would for a moment accept. Therefore, my Lords, it really is not worth while to avoid facing the trouble that you have to face if you are going to deal with the problem at all. Of course, if you say there is no necessity for any dealing with Ireland you need not face it, but you do not say that. The most rev. Prelate in the debate on the Bill earlier in the year admitted in very emphatic language that there was an Irish problem. Mr. Bonar Law has said so more than once in language equally plain and equally emphatic. I am not sure that the noble Marquess himself has not occasionally come over to the same position, but Mr. Balfour certainly has. But you do not make a single suggestion, for which the late Lord Chancellor reproached you, and you have not any step in your mind or in your own imagination towards meeting the problem the existence of which you all admit. I am not blaming you for that, for not bringing forward proposals. I do not think I quite follow my noble and learned friend in saying that it is your business to make proposals. But in criticising the proposals of those who are bolder than you are, do remember that you have to deal with Ireland as a whole; you cannot for a moment think that you could withdraw Ulster from the general orbit of Irish Government.
The noble Earl, talking about the spirit of the country, said there is no enthusiasm for our Home Rule Bill. The noble Earl is well acquainted with history. I wonder if there was any enthusiasm for the Bill for Catholic emancipation which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel brought in? Just as you have opposed Home Rule for now 25 years, so the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel opposed Catholic emancipation. Then they found they could not govern Ireland, and they came round without any enthusiasm being shown by the people of the country. I do not say that is the case now, but even if it were the case past history
1022
shows the fallacy of that point. But as to the separate treatment of Ulster, I remember very well that in the early days Mr. Parnell said to me a hundred times—
"I cannot do it. If you succeed in getting Parliament to give an Irish legislative body I could not carry it on if the Northerners were not a part of that body."
And I should suppose that the Nationalists of to-day would use the same language and hold the same views. The whole idea of a national governing body would disappear if you had this notion of separate treatment. Mr. Parnell used to say this—
"If you will give us a real and united Irish legislative body, there is only one thing you ought to do. In your own interests and in the interests of Ireland you ought to make us into a Crown colony."
The other day Mr. Balfour said there were four alternative policies. One was local councils; the second was this Bill, which he regarded as the worst possible; the third was separation; the fourth—I am sorry I have forgotten the fourth point. We banish—everybody banishes—separation. As to local government, I remember very well that Lord Salisbury at one time, before Mr. Gladstone adopted Home Rule as the policy of his Party, was in favour of a central authority as against local authorities, because a central authority would be more variously representative of Irish interests and would have more power. But we need not discuss that to-night.
You are going to dismiss this Bill, less, perhaps, from well-considered objections to Home Rule as a policy than to a desire, on which I make no remark, to discredit the Parliament Act. That was quite evident from the language of the noble Marquess last night, and it has been noted in every speech since except those speeches which have turned entirely upon Ulster. I have said that the noble Earl stated that there is no enthusiasm in England for Home Rule, and the noble Marquess said last night that while Ulster is bitterly opposed to Home Rule the rest of Ireland is indifferent. Well, the noble Marquess is surrounded in Ireland, which he knows well, by small Catholic farmers, who are, I am sure, good friends with him; but I feel very confident that this observation of his shows him to be remote from the inner feelings of the peasantry who surround him in the county of Kerry, and the same would be true of the other counties in the South of Ireland.

1023
I would like to put this case. Suppose that the English people chose, either by a referendum or without a referendum, to abandon Home Rule once for all. Suppose you had an election of one kind or another and it was clear that England, or, if you like, Great Britain, had discarded Home Rule once for all, and that it was a lost cause. I do not believe that the noble Marquess or any other reasonable and observant member of the landlord party in Ireland thinks you could carry on. Suppose it were true that the people in the South of Ireland are comparatively indifferent to Home Rule, the point blank refusal of it is the very thing that would quicken the present Home Rule feeling into a much angrier life than we have ever seen in our generation. I do not believe any one would deny that. You would then have to turn Ireland, as Mr. Parnell wanted, into a Crown colony; and if you think that either House of Parliament, under any House of Commons majority, would sanction anything like Crown colony Government in Ireland, I think you are profoundly miscalculating. The noble Marquess seemed to think that Ireland is not moving toward self-government. This, I venture to remark, is his second mistake. His first mistake, if he will allow me to say so, is in supposing that the South of Ireland is indifferent; and his second mistake is in supposing that Ireland as a whole is moving away in all sorts of forms, outside of Parliamentary forces, from the ideas, principles, and aspirations of self-government. I may note this, in passing, that you would find the difficulties of Irish government so great that you would have a considerable addition to make to what is called in the Bill the Transferred Sum.
I go back to Ulster for a moment. We have been asked, first by Lord Londonderry to-night, and now I think by the noble Earl, what we would do in the case of violent disorder in Ireland. When it is said, Would you shoot? what do you mean by that? What would you do in the case of violent disorder?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It was not my question.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Neither was it my question.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: No; the noble Marquess's question was really, if he will pardon me for saying it, an extraordinary question. It was this, If Mr. Redmond were to ask you to shoot, would you shoot? I think that is a fair way of representing the question.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Not at all. What I asked was this. If Mr. Redmond dictated to the Government to order English troops to shoot on the loyalists in Ireland, would they do it?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Now, my Lords, I am going to be perfectly straightforward in this matter, and very brief. I do not believe that ever before when Governments and Legislative Chambers were passing a very difficult question of Constitution framing, have they been asked what they would do in the case of a purely hypothetical contingency. Surely noble Lords must see that it would be ridiculous. What power Mr. Redmond may have—whether Mr. Redmond would have any power at all, what the particular case calling for armed intervention might be—all those are hypothetical contingencies.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I apologise for again interrupting. The reason I raised the question was that Mr. Birrell gave, according to the Nation, a hint that the English troops would not shoot on the loyalists, and Mr. Asquith affirmed that only by a nod. I say that a nod is not good enough for us; we want to have something stated in black and white.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Whatever reasons prompted the noble Marquess's question, I for one would refuse to say what I would do in what, by the hypothesis, might be an extremely delicate, critical and dangerous crisis—that is assumed from the terms in which the question is put. I cannot suppose, whoever may be the governors of Great Britain at that date, that they would hesitate to do all that public and national duty imposed upon them in the maintenance of order. I am afraid the question was put simply with the object of making a convenient political point—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I object to that entirely. I am not asking it with the object of making a convenient

1025
political point. I want to know whether the Government endorse Mr. Asquith's nod in affirming the statement of Mr. Birrell that the English troops would not fire on the loyalists of Ireland.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Really! I am asked across the Table to say how I interpret Mr. Asquith's nod. I did not see it; I was not in the House of Commons; I do not know what he meant by it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is exactly my point.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: How can I explain a nod? I do not want to say anything that is disagreeable or offensive to the noble Marquess, but he and other noble Lords are constantly putting this question because they think it politically a good point. I for one should not be at all afraid of meeting them on any platform—if I went on to platforms—and I should say, "I will not answer."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is my point. You will not answer.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Just so. But then I should go on to say that no such question was ever before put to responsible men framing, with tremendous difficulties, a new system of Irish Government, or any other sort of Government, as, "Will you shoot?" I am not sure that I shall have disappointed noble Lords opposite by what I have said. Perhaps they will welcome it. But what I have said I have said. The noble Earl used the same sort of argument about a referendum that the noble Marquess used last night, and I do not think in the thousands of speeches it has been my happy lot to listen to in the two Houses I ever heard a more singular and peculiar argument. The argument was this—it was to console us, to encourage us in coming forward with a referendum or Dissolution. He said, "The operation of the Parliament Act would be equally good supposing there were a referendum or an election between now and May." And the noble Marquess went on to say, "You would then have a priceless advantage; you would know for certain that you had not misread the opinion of the people of this country." What amazes me is that such a thing should conic into the mind of such an experienced public Minister as the noble Marquess. See what it is. I will ask
1026
the House to look at it. The Prime Minister, before coming to a decision upon the noble Marquess's wish, summons his Cabinet and says, "We have scorned delights and lived laborious days for months and months; we have worked hard with the draftsmen; the Cabinet has debated again and again; we have worked the House of Commons very hard. It occurred to me this morning," says the Prime Minister to his Cabinet, "that we may all the time have been misreading the opinion of the people, so I am going to ask you to agree to a Dissolution to find out whether we have been dreaming or whether we have been sensible practical men performing their business." Can the noble Marquess be serious when he talks of our being refreshed and encouraged by a Dissolution which would open our minds upon the question whether, after all, we had not been going through a huge labour from mere foolishness? I submit nothing more ludicrous has ever been said in Parliament.
You talk of our allies. I am sorry to have to do it, I would much rather not, but I must say a word about your allies. You will never govern Ireland, my Lords, under the Orange flag. I venture to say that with the utmost confidence, and I believe that sonic of your wisest Irish friends will tell you so. Why? You have thrown yourselves, only temporarily it may be, again, for a political purpose, into the arms of the Orangemen. Let me say from a pretty extensive observation of Irish doings that you would quarrel with your allies of to-day before you had been in office for an hour. When we are asked to look at Ulster and nothing else, see what the history is—I do not mean the whole history, but the history of our own immediate day. Your allies—I do not think the noble Marquess will contradict me in this—were against land purchase; they were against the Local Government Act of 1898; and I think I am not wrong in this painful statement, that they drove Mr. Wyndham from office; they quarrelled with Mr. Gerald Balfour because he made an appointment which gave them displeasure. Do you think when you come into power they will not claim their share, apart from all their legislative demands, in the victory?
Mr. Walter Long—whose early restoration to health all of us wish for—who

1027
knows about Ireland, said in the House of Commons—
I know Ireland well. I have a great many relations and friends in Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic; and I believe that religious difficulties will always be settled by the general common sense of the people."
He has no fear whatever of tyranny and persecution and so forth, but thinks the difficulties will be settled by general common sense. The other day there appeared in The Times a communication to which, if the Duke of Norfolk were present, I would ask his attention. As he is not present he may perhaps hear of it elsewhere. This writer, an authoritative writer in The Times, one of their own men, describes how he went into Antrim and talked to a man there, a workman. This man said—I think your Lordships will not object to my taking a minute to read this—
"There is no reason at all why we should not go on living and working peaceably side by side, every man believing and worshipping according to his conscience and his life. But it is all a sad, bad business. We have no quarrel with the Roman Catholic religion, but a Roman Catholic Government is a different thing. We will have none of it."
He then told the story about the wall of a cottage garden close at hand on the grey stones of which, roughly written in chalk, were the words, "No Pope here." The workman said to the newspaper correspondent—
"That is what it is—what England said long ago and had to fight for. We have said it ever since, and we say it now; and by God! we mean it. Let them do what they will, we will have no priest-ridden Ulster. Let the word be given, and there will not be a Papist left in Antrim."
It is an authoritative writer who gives that statement; and when people resist Home Rule on the ground of the intolerance of the Roman Catholics, it is worth while remembering that there is something in stories of that kind.
The few more remarks I should like to make are upon the real point of the noble Marquess's speech. The noble Marquess demands either a Dissolution or a referendum. I do not really quite understand on what grounds. Does he not see that to demand a referendum or a Dissolution because some Bill is going to pass of which your Lordships disapprove—does he not see that that referendum or Dissolution is a far heavier blow to Parliamentary authority, including the authority of this House, than anything in the Parliament
1028
Act? I am old-fashioned, and I dislike intensely the idea of our old and venerable system being transformed into an appeal to the—I do not know to whom the appeal is to be. A Dissolution will be to the voters, but you are refusing now the vote of a General Election. You are refusing the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act was passed by a General Election. There is no question of that; no one denies it; then why do you object to it? It was approved in order to enable Liberal measures to be passed. Why do you blame us for that Act? You should blame the electors. Why not blame the electors? They wanted Liberal measures, and they gave us this instrument with which to carry out their wish. A referendum, as suggested by the noble Marquess, would weaken the authority of Parliament and deprive Parliamentary government, whatever the comparative powers of the two Houses may be, of all that is best and worth having. If you deprive it of finality you deprive it of authority. I do not believe a less salutary proposal was ever made; and it cuts me to the quick that the Whig Party—if the noble Marquess still represents the Whig Party—that the Whig Party, which has done so much for Parliamentary freedom and Parliamentary authority, should now go off on those insalutary and evil lines.
One more remark, and then I will release your Lordships. As I say, you reproach us with our allies. You talk of coalition, and the word is part of the hackneyed cant of newspaper reproach. But the noble Marquess put the case of what is called coalition in, I think, a very unfair way. He said, "Home Rule is the price given to the Irish phalanx who saved you from direst distress." And he also said that the support of the phalanx, quite apart from the merits or demerits of any given measure, was really nothing better than a thinly veiled Parliamentary transaction.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Those were not words of mine. I quoted the words used by an Irish Member, who said that the support of his Party was given to the Budget, not on account of the merits or demerits of the measure, but for other reasons.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I thought I had quoted the words accurately. But the noble Marquess adopted that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I brought it forward as a piece of evidence in support of my case. I did not say it; he said it.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The relations between us and our allies were said to be a thinly veiled Parliamentary transaction. Surely that is the noble Marquess's own language; it is not Mr. Devlin's. I complain of that language. With what reason can we be accused of going in for a rather thinly veiled Parliamentary transaction? Who are the men who are doing this? Who are the men who have backed up Home Rule in order to buy the Irish vote? They are the head of the Government, the Lord Chancellor, my noble friend who is a Home Rule Lord Lieutenant, myself—we have been for twenty-five years working and speaking, whenever we could, for Home Rule. What is the sense, then, of saying that we picked it up, in some way or another, as a price to pay for the Irish vote? We are doing the best we can to secure these principles and aspirations because we believe in them, and because they have been for a generation the very core of our political being; and to talk of its being an item in a Parliamentary transaction strikes me as going beyond what I should have expected from the noble Marquess.
You may mock at what I am going to say, but do you not see that this fidelity of the Irish Parliamentary Party and of the people behind them, their fidelity in voting for measures that they did not much
care about, coherently, steadily, patiently, always with their eyes fixed upon their own perfectly legitimate end from their point of view, shows that they are capable, when some other great object comes before them, of showing what I call the same statesmanlike spirit that they have shown in the struggle for Home Rule? And see what that comes to. My contention is that if they had a Parliament of their own their main desire would be to make it a success. They could not make it a success unless they conciliated the northerners and made it a truly representative body. I have heard Conservatives say that this fidelity does imply a statesmanlike idea which might be used effectively when they came to larger questions in their own immediate sphere. I greatly regret that the House is not going into Committee on this Bill. The difficulties would be very great, no doubt, but then the country would have known where you are and what the differences are between you and us.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I venture respectfully to ask your Lordships' permission that Lord Cottesloe may have the privilege, on account of infirmity, of being polled in his seat.
Leave given to Lord Cottesloe accordingly to vote in the House.
On Question whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-contents, 302.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Blyth, L.

Lyveden, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Butler, L. (E. Carrick.)

MacDonnell, L.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Marchamley, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Pricy Seal.)

Charnwood, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Moulton, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Nunbumholme, L.

Cowdray, L.

Pirrie, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steuard.)

Devonport, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmott, L.

Reay, L.

Brassey, E.

Eversley, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Farrer, L.

Rotherham, L.

Cranbrook, K.

Fitzmaurice, L.

St. Davids, L.

Craven, E. (Teller.)

Glantawe, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Kimberley, E.

Glenconner, L.

Shaw, L.

Loreburn, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Southwark, L.

Russell, E.

Haversham, L.

Stanley of Alderlev, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Spencer, E.

Hemphill, L.

Hollenden, L.

Stanmore, L.

Inchcape, L.

Strachie, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Islington, L.

Swaythling, L.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Tenterden, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Weardale, L.

Airedale, L.

Loch, L.

Welby, L.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Lucas, L.

Whitburgh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lauderdale E.

Aberdare, L.

York, L. Abp.

Leicester, E.

Abinger, L.

Lichfield, E.

Addington, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Lindsey, E.

Aldenham, L.

Argyll, D.

Londesborough, E.

Alington, L.

Bedford, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Allerton, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Lovelace, E.

Ampthill, L.

Leeds, D.

Lucan, E.

Annaly, L.

Manchester, D.

Lytton, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Marlborough, D.

Macclesfield, E.

Armstrong, L.

Newcastle, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Portland, D.

Mansfield, E.

Atkinson, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Manvers, E.

Bagot, L.

Rutland, D.

Mar, E.

Balfour, L.

Somerset, D.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Wellington, D.

Mayo, E.

Barnard, L.

Morley, E.

Barrymore, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Morton, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Northbrook, E.

Belper, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Northesk, E.

Berwick, L.

Ailsa, M.

Onslow, E.

Blythswood, L.

Bath, M.

Orford, E.

Bolton, L.

Bristol, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Camden, M.

Plymouth, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Portsmouth, E.

Exeter, M.

Powis, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Lansdowne, M.

Roberts, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Linlithgow, M.

Romney, E.

Braye, L

Ripon, M.

Rosslyn, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Salisbury, M.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Winchester, M.

Saint Germans, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Zetland, M.

Sandwich, E.

Camoys, L.

Selborne, E.

Carew, L.

Abingdon, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Albemarle, E.

Stanhope, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ancaster, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Chelmsford, L.

Bandon, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Bathurst, E.

Westmeath, E.

Churston, L.

Brownlow, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanuilliam.)

Cadogan, E.

Wicklow, E.

Cairns, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Camperdown, E.

Yarborough, E.

Clinton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Clarendon, E.

Bangor, V.

Cloncurry, L.

Cottenham, E.

Bridport, V.

Colchester, L.

Coventry, E.

Chilston, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Cromer, E.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Cobham, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Doune.)

Darnley, E.

De Vesci, V.

De Mauley, L.

Dartrey, E.

Elibank, V.

Deramore, L.

Denbigh, E.

Falkland, V.

Desborough, L.

Derby, E.

Falmouth, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Devon, E.

Goschen, V.

Digby, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buceleuch and Queensberry.)

Halifax, V.

Dinevor, L.

Hampden, V.

Dunleath, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hardinge, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Durham, E.

Hill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Eldon, E.

Hood, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Essex, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Faber, L.

Ferrers, E.

Farnham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Knutsford, V.

Farquhar, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Peel, V.

Forester, L.

Grey, E.

Portman, V.

Glanusk, L.

Haddington, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Halsbury, K.

St. Vincent, V.

Harewood, E.

Templetown, V.

Grinstead, L. (M. Enniskillen.)

Harrington, E.

Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listouel.)

Howe, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Harlech, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Ilchester, E.

London, L. Bp.

Hastings, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lanesborough, E.

St, Asaph, L. Bp.

Hawke, L.

1032

1033

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Merthyr, L.

St. Audries, L.

Hindlip, L.

Middleton, L.

St. John of Bletao, L.

Hothfield, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

St. Levan, L.

Hylton, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Sanderson, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sandys, L.

Kenlis, L. (M.Headforl.)

Monson, L.

Savile. L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Seaton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Killanin, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sempiil, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Mostyn, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Mowbray, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Kinnaird, L.

Muncaster, L.

Sinclair, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Newlands, L.

Southampton, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Newton, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Lamington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Langford, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Sudeley, L.

Latymer, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Lawrence, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Talbot do Malahide, L.

Leconfield, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Templemore, L.

Leigh, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Tennyson, L.

Lilford, L.

Plunket, L.

Teynham, L.

Llangattock, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Torphichen, L.

Lovat, L.

Powerscourt, L. (V. Pouerscourt.)

Trevor, L.

Lovell and Holland, L. (E. Egmont)

Tweedmouth, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Vivian, L.

Ludlow, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crauford.)

Lurgan, L.

Rathmore, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Manners, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Massy, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

Meldrum, L (M. Huntly.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, L.

Rothschild, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative accordingly, and the said Resolution agreed to.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that there is in my name on the Paper a further Amendment to this Bill. I regret that the noble Earl who sits below the Gangway (Lord Camperdown) and who takes an interest in this subject is not here to speak upon it. The Amendment has, however, been submitted to him, and he has no objection to it. I beg to move.
Amend melt moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 5 to 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
"( ) Where any candidate at a parliamentary election or a candidate's agent on his behalf gives notice in writing to the returning officer during the nomination time or within one hour
1034
afterwards that he wishes the poll at that election—

"(a) to commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon, or

"(b) to be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon, or

"(c) to commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon,

"the Elections (Hours of Poll) Act, 1885, shall, in relation to that election, be construed as if the hour specified in any such notice, whether as respects the commencement or close of the poll, were substituted for eight o'clock in the forenoon or eight o'clock in the afternoon, as the case may be, being the hours specified in that Act for the commencement and close of the poll respectively."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 124.)

FORGERY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, Four o'clock.