As regards Schedule B, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but I do not think that it is in order. He seeks to put in certain words which I do not think can be raised on the schedule.

said the words which he proposed to put in were only explanatory of the words already in the schedule. They did not in any way interfere with the meaning of the schedule beyond emphasising what were the points therein contained. He submitted that so long as they did not go outside of the Resolution, there could be no objection to any verbal alteration, provided that they did not in any way increase or diminish the charge. He submitted this Amendment in order to raise a question which ought to be a little more discussed by the Committee.

said he did not think, in the first place, that there was any precedent for such an Amendment at this stage; and, in the second place, unless there was something in the nature of a discrepancy between the resolutions in Committee of Supply and the schedule to which the noble Lord could point in this matter, he certainly did not think that he could raise his Amendment.

said he could point out that in this case the Public Accounts Committee had reported to the House that words of the kind he suggested, namely, after "grants" to insert "to meet a temporary emergency," ought to be inserted in the Appropriation Bill, and it was only with a view to carrying out that recommendation that he asked the House to assent to these words. With regard to precedent, he agreed there was none, and there was none for the particular procedure adopted, except last year.

said that after the explanation of the noble Lord all he could say was that the point ought to be taken on the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his ruling that it was impossible to insert in the Appropriation Bill any Amendment coming within the terms of the original Resolution on which the Appropriation Bill was based.

said he was not ruling absolutely that, but he must point out that if they could raise Amendments of the kind now proposed, they could discuss again altogether the terms on which these grants were made. He thought that would be undesirable.

said that this was virtually a matter of first-rate constitutional importance on which there ought to be a definite and clear ruling. The Amendment did not in any way affect to raise the question of the policy of making these grants; he merely proposed to insert the words in order to make it clear why these grants were made. He respectfully submitted that a discussion on the Report, of the Public Accounts Committee would not really have met the case. They knew that the Public Accounts Committee had reported that certain words should be inserted in the Appropriation Bill.

said that according to previous rulings on the Appropriation Bill the Amendment was out of order.

With regard to this Amendment and the next, I have to say that in my opinion they are what are called "privilege" Amendments, and I say so on the ground that they vary the grant of the old-age pension as determined by this House, and, if no further legislation takes place, they would make the grant to end after a certain period of time. In my opinion these two Amendments are privilege Amendments.

said the object which the Lords had in view, so far as he could judge, was to make good a plain defect in the original Bill. The amount of charge thrown upon the taxpayers, or as he should rather say the accuracy of the estimate of the charge, would really depend upon the success attending the efforts to prevent the receipt of pensions by persons not entitled to them because of their being under the age of seventy. He thought the scheme in respect to that age would have to be modified in the future, but as all financial estimates, all the prophecies of the Government, of the charges on the public depended upon the accuracy and success with which they were able to prevent persons getting pensions, it war quite clear the machinery of the Bill and its loose wording might be somehow or other greatly improved. This could not be denied. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had already had regulations drawn up of a more elaborate character than this Amendment, or any that could be introduced into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown the House these regulations, but he was quite ready to accept the statement.

said it was obvious that he could not lay the regulations before the House until he knew what were the decisions to which they came, because these regulations might be affected very seriously one way or the other by these very vital Amendments.

said there was force and substance in this objection, and if the right hon. Gentleman was far advanced with his regulations——

Yes.

If the right hon. Gentleman considered that the regulations, would be more effective for attaining the object of the Lords Amendment, then he did not quarrel with the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman had really done justice to the Amendment. It did not require the production of official documents in every case, nor at the cost of the pensioner; it merely said that where it was practicable a certificate should be provided, but the committee had the alternative of doing without it; it was merely an indication of the method to be pursued. He did not envy the position of a pension officer in certain parts of the United Kingdom who, in doubt as to the age of the applicant, demanded the certificate. That was a much less workable arrangement than to indicate on the face of the Bill that official evidence when required should be procured, not at the expense of the applicant, but at the expense of the pension committee, who should themselves say the particular instances into which the pension officer was to be entitled to inquire. The right hon. Gentleman said the regulations were in draft, but that he could not present them until he knew the final form of the Bill.

said he had them all ready.

said that if they had seen them, in draft Members would know what they were doing. So much was left to regulation that practically all that the House had done was to tell the Government to draw up a scheme for old-age pensions. It would have been better had the Government presented the draft regulations at the earliest stage for discussion, and afterwards amended them if necessary. He did not propose to divide the House on this Amendment after what the right hon. Gentleman had said.

said that this was really a drafting Amendment, and he did not think that it really mattered much. If the Lords thought they were better than the words of the Bill he was not disposed to quarrel with them; it was a pure matter of drafting. Then in line 24 they would have to put in the word "has" instead of "have."

It appears to me that this is also a privilege Amendment, and the effect of it might be to vary the period of disqualification. The Bill says the period of disqualification shall be determined on 31st December, 1910; but if these words were struck out the period would be indeterminate; it might be a shorter or a longer time; they would, at all events, vary the period the House has fixed. I therefore consider this a privilege Amendment.

said that this was very largely a question of drafting. They had had a discussion about it, on the initiative, he thought, of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and they had then decided to stand by the words of their own draftsman. He moved to disagree.

said he did not quite understand the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman refused the Amendment. He had informed them quite clearly that the Government intended the words to mean that a person should not be disqualified if he had continuously for the last ten years up to attaining the age of sixty made certain payments, and it seemed desirable that that should be made as clear as words could make it. This Amendment would leave no doubt in anybody's mind, and they clearly carried out the expressed intentions of the Government. In the interests of clearness and of the avoidance of litigation the House would be well-advised to consider whether it would not do well to accept the Amendment.

said he quite agreed that this was not a very important point, but he could not agree as at present advised that it was merely one of drafting, and he was very anxious to know exactly what the policy of the Government was as expressed by these words. Judging by what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appeared that in the opinion of the Government there was no question of substance involved. He was not sure that that was so. Was it not the case that if the Lords Amendment were accepted the mere omission of one month in the last ten years would disqualify? On the other hand, if the Government form were taken was it not also the fact that any ten years since the man was seventeen or eighteen and began to earn wages, would enable the pension to be given? He was not quite satisfied with the Lords' drafting or with the Government's drafting either. He took it that the Government were reluctant to make the mere omission of a month or two months in the last ten years a disqualification. There he agreed with them, and he thought the Lords Amendment was too stringent. On the other hand the Government form was far too lax. He wondered whether the Government could not arrange, perhaps not then, but before the Bill was finally settled, some form of words which would meet the general view of the Government, the rest of the House, and the House of Lords.

thought they had made the policy of the Government abundantly clear on the Report stage; that policy had been stated very fairly by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the words they had inserted, and which they proposed to stand by, quite adequately expressed that intention. He agreed that the Lords Amendment would, be too severe; he preferred the words as they were inserted originally, more especially as the House had accepted them at the time, with the exception of a few dissentients. It was the expression of the general sense of the House, and he was not disposed to depart from it.

said he was left in complete doubt as to what the real intention of the Government was. In the Report stage the Government said that what they intended was that a man should have been a subscriber to a friendly society for the ten years immediately preceding attaining the age of sixty. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his charming manner that he quite agreed with his right hon. friend as to what the House ought to do. But he understood that his right hon. friend put two alternatives before the Government and did not express agreement with either, but really expressed a wish to have a different solution of the question.

thought the Leader of the Opposition put to him the specific case of rural societies which had become insolvent, and appealed to him to take that into account. That was why on the whole he preferred words which were not too absolutely stringent, and he thought the words of the Commons were better for that very reason, that it would enable them to take into account cases of that kind. If that society became bankrupt, through no fault of the person who had paid subscriptions all his life, just a year or two before he attained sixty, it was a case which they ought to take into account, and he responded to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition. He preferred the words as they stood.

said the right hon. Gentleman now deliberately said that he preferred vague words which left the matter in dispute to words which were precise and defined what the meaning of the House actually was. That was what it came to. That was a most extraordinary conclusion and was entirely different from the position taken up on Report, when the right hon. Gentleman said, with all the authority of the Government draughtsman behind him, that they meant exactly what they said they meant, that a man must have subscribed for the ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, and that they insisted on the words because they were so clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin made an appeal to him in an especially hard case, and he said he would introduce words to deal with the case if he could. Now he said the words were not clear, and because they were not clear he hoped they would be able to get round the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. Surely that was a most admirable instance of the absurdity to which they had been put in the discussion of this Bill. He hoped the Government, if they could not accept the Lords Amendment, would draft an Amendment which really carried out their wishes. It seemed perfectly clear that the words contained in the Bill were doubtful. The Leader of the Opposition spoke without favour to the Lords Amendment, or to the policy of continuous payment for ten years, or discontinuous payment, and what he regarded as perfectly plain was that the words meant that any ten years before attaining sixty would do. Surely it was absurd for the Government to say that the words were perfectly clear. It was plain beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not clear, but did they carry out what the Government said was their original intention? If they now said that was not their meaning, it was quite open to them to move to amend the Lords Amendment or to say they would introduce in the other House words which would make their meaning plain.

hoped the House would disagree with the Lords Amendment. The noble Lord was very particular about thrifty persons not being handicapped, but let him put a simple case, that of a man who had made a bit of money up to forty-five or fifty, went into business, and at sixty entirely failed, through no fault of his own. There were many in the unions who had failed in that way. Because in the last ten years of his life he had been away from his friendly society and come into poverty he was to be shut out, and the Lords had put in this cast-iron rule.

said he had taken a somewhat active part in the original discussion on the Report stage, and he did not quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an agreement was arrived at, because, as far as he was concerned, he said he was not satisfied with the language as it stood in the Bill, and he hoped the Government would find it possible to amend it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given one hard case; but he thought he had entirely lost sight of the second class of case which was raised at an earlier stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred only to one class of case where a society lapsed through bad management, and a man suffered through no fault of his own. There were plenty of cases where a man having failed to maintain his subscription and his membership having lapsed, the society reinstated him into his former position. The words of the Bill would would exclude such a case. He considered the Amendment restrictive and unfair, and he could not vote for it. Still, he felt strongly that what the Leader of the Opposition had said ought to be listened to. He believed that when the Bill came to be translated into action, words such as those in question would lead to difficulty and in some cases to the greatest possible injustice. Perhaps the point might be cleared up by the regulations. There must of necessity be difficulties in the phraseology of such a Bill which could only be cleared up by means of regulations. The House had not seen the regulations, and would be proceeding in the dark. But the fault for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was arraigned was one which had also been committed by others He himself had declined to produce regulations when Bills were in progress, because it was impossible for the permanent officials to prepare the regulations till they had the whole Bill before them. All they could do was to frame part of the regulations governed by the main principle of the Bill. Difficult points of this kind could not be dealt with by regulation till the Bill was complete.

Everybody appears to agree that it would be undesirable to accept the Lords Amendment, which, so far from bettering the position, would make it worse by imposing greater stringency than this House intended and than right hon. Gentlemen opposite contemplated. We have only power to accept the Lords Amendment, to reject it, or to amend it. I do not see any means by which it could be amended which would make it adequate to the requirements of the case. I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is the right one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurs, and it appears to us that, under the very wide language of the regulation section, a regulation might be made which would adequately deal with this particular case. If so, that would be better than adopting hard and fast words in the Bill.

said the words of the Bill were "if he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty." He was inclined to think that a Court of Justice might construe that as meaning continuously during the last ten years. He suggested that the words "if he has continuously during a considerable part of the last ten years" would be better.

asked if it was competent for the House to amend the Lords Amendment, and then make any necessary consequential Amendment.

If the Lords Amendment is agreed to, it is competent for this House to make any consequential Amendment.

I am of opinion that this is a privilege Amendment. It extends very largely the benefits of the Bill. The effect of it is to remove the ten years disqualification from persons sentenced to imprisonment of less than one month—that is, it limits disqualification for ten years to persons who are sentenced to more than one month. The effect of this will probably be to exclude a smaller number of persons; in other words, to add a certain number. Accordingly, it varies the charge. I may point out, however, to the House that the door is always open to the House not to insist on its privilege, if it desires to accept an Amendment.

I should like to know whether the Government propose to insist upon their privilege.

Yes; I move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I understand that the Amendment removes what is a manifest hardship in the Bill, and I should have thought the Government would have seized the opportunity of asking the House to waive its right and accept the Amendment. I am the more surprised that they have not taken the opportunity which the Lords have given them of modifying the Bill in favour of the pensioner, seeing that, as I understand, the Amendment was either moved or accepted by their representative. As to the action which the Government are now taking—action for which they have given no reason whatever—it appears that in their desire not to accept an Amendment of the Lords they deliberately refuse what is admitted to be an improvement in the Bill.

asked if they were to understand that the Lords Amendment extended the number of those who would be applicants for old-age pensions.

said that the terms of the Amendment tended to modify this clause very considerably and removed possibilities of very great injustice. He regretted the decision of the Government, but would vote with them.

hoped that after that debate the assertion would no longer be made in the constituencies that the Liberal Government were the only people who were in favour of old-age pensions.

desired to move that the House should not insist on its privileges m the ease of this Amendment. In the absence of some such Amendment serious injustice might be inflicted. If n carter was convicted of not having his cart lighted, or of being asleep in his cart, and the magistrates imposed a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine, he might find himself absolutely disqualified for a pension. That was a perfectly outrageous proposal.

I do not think, so far as I can form a judgment, that the effect of the insertion of these words would be anything like so great in extent as seems to be supposed. But we are here dealing with a question which in my opinion is of the greatest importance to the procedure and privileges of this

I put the point of order, are there not countless precedents for this House waiving its privileges in these matters and accepting an Amendment from the Lords which technically violates its privileges?

I think almost every year, certainly very frequently, this House does not insist upon its privilege. It accepts Amendments, and in sending a message to the other House the statement is made that this House does not insist upon its privilege.

expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment.

I want to submit to you, Sir, that this is an infringement of the privileges of this House. The effect of it would undoubtedly be to diminish the number of those who could claim a pension. The effect of the Lords Amendment is this. The pension officer would be obliged to recognise the income of a man, not in accordance with what it actually is, but in accordance with what it ought to be if he invested his money in a different way. For instance, if he invested it in Consols, the pension officer might say: "You are only getting 2½ per cent, for your money, and you should invest it at 5 per cent.," or, if he had £200 in the Post Office Savings Bank, he might say: "You ought not to invest it in the Post Office Savings Bank. If you were to invest it in some industrial security which you might acquire you would get 5½ per cent." That would have the effect of diminishing the number of those who could claim a pension, apart altogether from the merits, and consequently I submit on the question of privilege that it is an interference with the privileges of the Commons, because it is quite clear that under the words as they stood originally the pension officer would have no right at all to tell a man who claims a pension to invest his money at 4, or 4½, or 5½ per cent, instead of putting it in the Post Office Savings Bank or in Consols.

I have considered this question, and I think the Lords Amendment is really an explanation of the words: "profitably used." Who is to say whether a man has properly or improperly used his money? What is intended by the words, "profitably used"? These are vague general words, and it seems to me that the explanation of the words is that the money is so invested "as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it." An investment in Consols would not in many instances, but might in others, be the largest income that could be reasonably obtained. That is a matter of argument. I think that it would be the doctrine of privilege run mad to insist upon this as a breach of privilege. The House may or may not accept the Amendment, as it pleases.

said that in that case he moved that the House disagree with the Lords Amendment on the ground that it practically directed a man to invest his money in something that would produce more than the 2½ or 2¾ per cent. which it would produce if invested in Government securities. It was not desirable that the House of Commons should practically drive a man away from investing in Government securities.

said it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had never considered the merits of this question. The Government had sent up to the House of Lords a most slovenly piece of work, and the House of Lords had dealt with a plain and obvious blot in the Bill. A man had a choice between investing his money in some permanent security, like Consols, or of putting it in a building society, in a trade union, or in buying an annuity. If such an investor remained content with a small return only, he was able to preserve the corpus of his property for his children and, at the same time, to get a pension for himself from the State. The House ought to make up its mind how it meant to deal with the case. If a man possessed the money they ought not to encourage him to secure a provision for his old-age out of the taxpayers' money while leaving the corpus of his property to his children. If, on the other hand, they said it was desirable that people should leave their money to their children, and that they should be encouraged to invest their property in Consols or a similar security, rather than in a trade union or benefit society, then, at all events, let them say that that was their policy. He did not think it was a justifiable policy, but the Government had not, throughout the whole course of the debates, given one single word of explanation of what it was they meant. The case, which was really one of substance, might be put plainly and simply in this form. A man had £200 invested in Consols or some mortgage. This brought him in, say, £6 or £7 a year. If he had only this £6 or £7, he had a right, when he was seventy, to come down on the State and say: "Give me 5s. a week." But he had the £200 to leave to his children. Was that what they wanted to encourage? Let them make up their minds. If the man, instead of accumulating these few hundred pounds, had spent his money in contributions to a benefit society or to a trade union or in the purchase of a life annuity, he would have a larger income, he would have a smaller claim on the State, and he would not have the corpus of his property to leave to his children. He thought the Government should say under which of these two plans they meant to take their stand. It would make all the difference in the working of any scheme of old-age pensions. The language of the Bill should be made perfectly clear. Which of there two things did the Government mean? He submitted that the Lords were perfectly justified in trying to make the language and policy of the Bill perfectly clear. Whether their solution was the light one was another question, but that the House of Commons had never been allowed to argue.

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked him a question and, with the leave of the House, he would answer it by putting to him the specific case of a man who had £200 saved up and who had a family dependent on him—let them say an unmarried daughter.

That is not my case.

said he did not say it was the case of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case the right hon. Gentleman put to the House was of a man with £200 saved up, which he could leave to his children. His case was: Suppose the man had an unmarried daughter living with him. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that in that case they ought to force——

said he must interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman was putting into his mouth, as an illustration, a case which he had not put. Let them suppose that the owner of the £200 wanted to leave his money, not to an unmarried daughter living at home, but to a nephew who was extremely well-off in America.

did not think the man with £200 would take the same trouble to save his money for a rich nephew in America that he would if he had some one dependent upon him in his own house. He would take an illustration which was a more practical and a more usual one, that of an old man who had an unmarried daughter, or it might be a widowed daughter, looking after him. He was seventy-two or seventy-three, and the right hon. Gentleman said he must buy an annuity with his £200. He bought an annuity. He might live six months, and then, at his death, he left those dependent on him absolutely penniless. The right hon. Gentleman called upon them to decide what the Government were going to do in such a case. His reply was that they stood by the Bill, which would not impose upon such a man the necessity of buying an annuity, which he might only enjoy for two or three months and then leave those dependent on him penniless.

said he did not know what the Government really intended by this part of the Bill. Did they mean that the means of a person for the purposes of the Act should be "the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him." Did that or did it not mean that account should be taken of the income which might reasonably be obtained from the property? Unless the words meant that, they had no administrative or practical meaning at all; and the sole effect of the Amendment was to make that apparent. The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance of an old man with an unmarried daughter looking after him, and said that it would be very unfair indeed for him to have to buy an annuity and leave his unmarried daughter who was dependent upon him penniless. But was it quite clear that under the clause as it stood without the Lords Amendment the man might not be forced to do so? Could the right hon. Gentleman point to the words which would enable the old man to say to the pension officer: "I am not bound to do it; I resist your demand, and I will not buy an annuity, and nevertheless, you will have to give me a pension." As the Bill stood, as it left this House, it was perfectly open to the pension officer to suggest—he was not at all sure that it would not be the duty of the pension officer to say: "No; you have £200; so long as you have that £200 invested in Consols, I cannot grant you a pension, and that on the ground that you are not profitably using your £200 within the meaning of subsection (3) of Clause 4 of the Act." That was the point. The sole effect of this Amendment was to make it clear that they were to take into account the property of the man, the use which he made of it, and whether that was the largest income he could reasonably obtain from it. The Amendment would remove all doubt upon that point.

said that this was another of the clauses which, owing to the operation of the guillotine, the House had had no opportunity whatever of discussing.

This was discussed.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. This particular provision was not discussed at all.

It was discussed. The Leader of the Opposition, certainly, and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, put this dilemma in the debate. Whether the answer was satisfactory or not is another matter, but it certainly was debated.

said the right hon. Gentleman forgot that it was put to him as the guillotine was falling, and there was no opportunity whatever of any further discussion of the matter. He could not for the life of him see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the very reasonable Amendment inserted by the Lords. Surely it was not desirable to encourage the poor to hoard their money, to hide it in a stocking. They should rather encourage them to invest it. The Amendment gave a distinct guide and direction to those who were to estimate the yearly income to see that reasonable precautions were taken to invest the money instead of hoarding it.

asked the Government to explain what they meant by the words the Yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property "if profitably used by him." Take the case of a man with an unmarried daughter, owning a piece of land which he was holding up. He was getting no income out of it, but he was holding it up for the benefit of his unmarried daughter, because he knew that at the time of his death this land would have ripened and would be worth more. What was the pension officer to do in a case of that kind? Was he to say that this man was entitled to a pension or not?

said that, to his mind, the Lords Amendment would increase the hardship in rural districts to a considerable extent. Many cottagers had household gods such as old clocks, old brass candlesticks, warming-pans, and china which had been in their families for a hundred years or more and which they valued for themselves. There were collectors who would be quite ready and willing to give £50 or £100 for the contents of these cottages, because there was an immense demand for these articles, and under the Bill that value would have to be capitalised and the interest reckoned as part of the income of the cottager, although he had no doubt the pension officer would take a very lenient view of such cases. He hoped the House would resist the Lords Amendment. The clause itself, for the reasons he had stated, was an unjust one. Such property as these people might have which from the point of view of sentiment they would not sell, but which a collector would value at anything from £25 to £100, should not be regarded as property from which an income could be derived.

by leave of the House, asked the Attorney-General whether, in his view of the clause, a man who sold the remainder of a life annuity and invested the proceeds in some permanent investment would or would not be "directly or indirectly depriving himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension" under subsection 3.

said he certainly would say, so far as his own opinion was concerned, that a bona fide act of the kind described by the tight hon. Gentleman would not be an attempt within the meaning of the section which forbids a man to deprive himself of his income. It would be a perfectly reasonable and legitimate change of investment. The clause was directed against the person who obviously intended to bring himself within the scope of the Bill by lessening his income for that purpose. A reasonable change by a man in the use of his money, still retaining it in profitable use, would not bring him within the penalties laid down in the clause. As the Bill stood it sought to prevent hoarding, and it said that any man possessed of property must put it to a profitable use. The inquiry of the pension officer went to that extent only. But the Lords Amendment would push the inquiry very much further, and the pension officer would have to go, not merely into the broad general question as to whether a man was profitably using his money, but into the question of how he had exercised his judgment in the use of that money, whether he had done it reasonably or unreasonably. He had rather gathered that the Opposition objected to the great scope already given to the inquiry by the pension officer; they were seeking now to push that inquiry into a sphere of a very dangerous character. They would make a mistake if, under cover of preventing fraud, they proceeded to stimulate reckless and improvident investment.

said the case which might arise was even stronger than had been stated by the Leader of the Opposition. A man of seventy otherwise qualified might have £739 invested in Consols. With £266 he could purchase himself a Post Office annuity of 13s. a week and still have £470 of his original capital invested in Consols. There was an even stronger case. An old couple of seventy living together might have £2,218 invested in Consols, and still, if they chose, draw from the State a pension of 2s. a week. He was perfectly aware that not many cases of that sort would arise, but, at the same time, the point could hardly be dismissed by a humorous observation.

asked whether old furniture, an old clock or ornaments and things of that sort, in the possession of these persons would come under (b) or (c). If it fell under (b) there would be no danger, but if it fell under (c) it was another matter.

said he did not think that under the Bill, as it stood, the old clock would be taken into account at all by the pension officer. But if Lords Amendment were inserted it would undoubtedly be taken into account.

said it appeared to him that some people wanted to turn the pension agent into a touting agent for speculative builders. He thought this was legislation for poor people. Could anyone imagine a man who had toiled for a daily wage for seventy years developing into a speculator? They would never find a working man who had put by £2,200. He had a better opinion of the Englishman than to believe that he would descend to subterfuges of the kind suggested in order to obtain a pension. That might be the view of the noble Lord and other hon. Gentlemen who had an intimate knowledge of the criminal classes, but after all, the majority of the people were not of the criminal class. The whole opposition to this declaration was frivolous. Those supporting it did not know what they were talking about. He had never come across these working men with hundreds of pounds. He wished he had. He did not believe they existed save in the imagination of those who were opposing this declaration.

said the last speech rather confirmed a doubt which he had felt as to whether those who called themselves Labour Members really knew anything about the subject. The hon. Member had suggested that it was impossible to find a working man who had saved any money.

Nothing of the sort.

Of course, the man who had saved £2,000 would be an extreme case. The point of the discussion was a perfectly simple one, and it had not been met by the Government. At present subsection (c) of the clause was absolutely vague, it might mean one thing in one case and another thing in another, and the result would be that in some districts pensions would be given under one set of terms, in others under another set of terms. That could not be desirable. All the Lords did was to make a guess at what the House meant and to try to put it into clear language. If they meant, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that people were not to be forced to buy an annuity, but could invest their money in any way they liked, then let them say so in the Bill. The point was that the Bill teemed with instances where the meaning was left absolutely vague and unclear, which must lead to injustice. He confessed that the Attorney-General's speech seemed to him, if he might say so, not really to deal with the point. He said they could not put on the pension officer the duty of inquiring whether the investment had been made profitably or not; but the subsection itself said—

"The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used."

said they had only one lot of money to go round, and the more they gave to the people who did not want it the less they would have for the people who did want it. As far as he could see, the case of capital was provided for in the Australian and New Zealand schemes, and if persons owned more than a certain amount of money they were not entitled to a pension. He had always been surprised that no provision of that kind was made in the Bill. He did not think the Lords Amendment met that point, but he suggested that it might be possible to draft the regulations so as to meet it.

thought the Amendment as it stood was open to the objections of his right hon. friend, and he therefore hoped it would not be agreed to. There was another point which he did not think had been touched upon. What was to become of the case of a man who had put money into the reversion of a small cottage property? Would it be treated as if that property had to be sold and an income taken from it or not? For the time being there would be no income from it. Would any income be taken into account?

said there was no definition in the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised the definition given by the Lords of the person aggrieved and there might be substance in his criticism, but was he going to substitute any other definition? The term "person aggrieved" might be so easily interpreted that a definition was not required, and in that case it was only the would-be pensioner who had the right of appeal.

And the pension officer.

Then that will be all right.

This appears to be a privilege Amendment which alters the constitution of the body appointed by this House to carry the Act into execution, and in whom is vested the expenditure of the money to be granted.

This gives to the Local Government Board the power of varying the constitution of the body to whom the House has entrusted the expenditure of the money, and therefore I think this also ought to be considered a privilege Amendment.

said he was glad the Government were doing all they could to strengthen this clause, because fears which were expressed at an earlier stage of the debate, that political organisations would be dragged into this matter, had already begun, unfortunately, to be fulfilled. He had just had put into his hands the copy of a letter from the Downend and Soundwell Liberal Association in these terms—

"Dear Sir or Madam,—As you are probably aware, the present Liberal and free trade Government is making provision for an old-age pension. The above association is compiling a register for the district of persons who are seventy years of age or will attain that age this year. The committee of the association desire to place their services at the disposal of any person who is eligible, and will assist such to obtain the pension."

said he agreed that it would be a grave misfortune and might easily become a disaster if a Bill of this sort was to be worked for the purposes of corruption, and therefore he strongly deprecated any attempt of that sort.

said he had very grave doubts with regard to this Amendment. He had come to the conclusion that on the whole it was undesirable to insert the words. He thought the penalty much too severe. Supposing a man rearranged his pension with his employer with a view of getting a little more, whatever view they took as to the desirability or undesirability of it he thought they must admit that to make it a penal offence was rather severe. The subsection might be capable of that interpretation, and he therefore on the whole thought it undesirable to insert the words and moved that they should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

said he largely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not know whether his intention had been drawn to subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Bill. The subsection proposed by the Lords was really only carrying that out.

said he had given his attention to subsection (3) of Section 4. He wanted to draw the distinction. A person who acted in the manner suggested ought to be disqualified, but it would be rather severe to make his conduct a penal offence.

said he did not object to the substance of the new subsection, but to its insertion in the Bill. It was really a matter for regulations, and there was an advantage in dealing with it in that way. Regulations could be altered and adapted according to circumstances as they arose, and he had no doubt that in practice they would discover a good many things which they could not at present foresee. It would be very undesirable if they had to introduce a Bill to amend matters of procedure in every particular because they had inserted in an Act of Parliament what ought to be left to regulations. Matters of this kind, therefore, really ought to be dealt with in regulations, and for that reason, and not because he disagreed with the substance of the subsection, he moved that they should disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

said he could quite understand the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate a provision of this sort in the Bill, because they must all agree that the duty upon the pension offices would be very disagreeable. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must feel and know that, however disagreeable the system was, it would have to be carried out unless the taxpayers were to be completely overwhelmed. He preferred that it should be provided for by regulation. Unless, however, the regulation was clear and stringent and was observed throughout the country, the Exchequer would be little less than overwhelmed. If the duty was made obligatory upon the pension officers, that no doubt would meet the case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assure them that that would be so.

said he was rather sorry to hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did not think it was necessary to have this Amendment either on the face of the Bill or in regulations. He hoped nothing would be done by the issue of regulations after the passing of the Bill to require the pension officer or anybody else to go touting round ascertaining whether a man had ceased to be qualified for a pension. The Bill already provided a penalty for a man who was found to be in receipt of an old-age pension when he did not fulfil the statutory conditions or when he was not qualified, and he thought that was sufficient.

said the cases were altogether different. This was a case of a person who, though qualified at the time the pension was granted, had since become disqualified, having possibly received a legacy. He thought in such a case the pension officer should be entitled to go and ask for information.

said he quite agreed that in a case of that character it would be the duty of the pension officer to go and inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, have the name of the person removed from the register; but he did not want anything put in the Bill or any instructions given which would make it the duty of the pension officer to go touting round to discover such cases. It would, make it rather awkward for the old people if they were to be continually liable to inquiry as to any alteration in their circumstances. He therefore regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated his intention of considering the matter in connection with the regulations, and he hoped he would not carry it out.

said that this Amendment of the Lords hid in one way and another got the Bill into rather a state of confusion, and he proposed to deal with the matter in another way. The Amendment divided itself into two parts, and with the first part down to the word "theology" he proposed to agree. But then the Amendment went on to reinsert certain words which were inserted for the first time in Committee upstairs, and when the Bill returned to the House on Report the words were excised. They were reinserted in another place by a majority of one. He believed that for a considerable time the Government had looked forward to the unique experience of having a majority of their own, but by the influence of the Episcopal bench the Amendment was carried by one, and the hopes of his noble friend were dashed to the ground. Owing to what had passed in the House on the Report stage it was not possible now to accept the Amendment in reference to the erection of chapels. To make good sense of the entire clause he proposed to disagree with the Amendment, and then at the end of line 41 to insert the words "and no professor of, or lecturer in, theology shall be eligible for membership of the General Board of Studies, or of any faculty other than the faculty of theology." He moved in the first instance to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

said that as the Chief Secretary was aware, at an early stage of the proceedings he had disagreed with his action with regard to the chapel clause, and he had described it then, as he believed it now, as an attempt at the last moment to conciliate Nonconformist opinion on the other side of the House, which had been so remarkably quiescent in the earlier stages and was prepared to allow its own Government to do what it would have vigorously resented if it had come from a Conservative Government. This was an attempt to placate them, and to send them away for the holidays with a pleasanter taste in their mouths. Far be it from him to deprive them of that pleasant addition to their holidays. They would find a satisfaction he should not share. He would like to take that opportunity of saying that in the discussion of the Amendment he had apparently fallen into a strange error, because he was reported to have said that he "hoped" this would be a denominational University. What lie obviously meant to say, and bethought did say, was that he 'believed" it would be a denominational University; and holding that belief, he had said that not only must there be active participation in the work of the Roma Catholic hierachy if it was to be a success, but he had gone on to point out that, being a denominational University in his judgment it was not only a hardship but altogether illogical and unjust to draw these particular distinctions with regard to places of worship. He had thought it necessary to make that correction, because his remarks had been criticised in some portion of the Press, and had naturally led to some controversy amongst those who might happen to know that he held views of a different kind, although he did not know whether they attached any interest to what his views were on this subject. He did not propose to offer any opposition to the action of the Chief Secretary; so far as he was concerned, he accepted the decision arrived at on the Report stage as final, and he would not trouble to divide the House against a proposal which, although he did not like it, formed part of the Bill for which the Government was responsible. He had no doubt it might be advanced as an expression, in milk-and-water fashion, of those old principles of undenominationalism which at one time formed the staple argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which, in these later days, they had not only abandoned, but in the abandonment took credit to themselves for the establishment of this University, which they would eventually find to be nothing but a denominational institution. That being so, he thought it would have been fairer if, instead of cutting off a small portion of it, they had given a denominational University right out, and allowed the chapels to be built.

said the Chief Secretary would not be surprised at finding the Irish Members as a matter of principle going into the division lobby against him on this question. Personally, he did not much like agreeing with the Lords on anything, but he had no constitutional objection to them. This Amendment represented the views of Irish Members in Committee, which they afterwards supported on the Report stage. He did not propose to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin in attempting to make party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists on this matter. Of course the right hon. Gentleman would go away much happier on his holidays if he thought he had made a little party capital. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that the University was going to be an entirely denominational University. The view of the Nationalist Members from Ireland was that these Universities were going to be free Universities. Clause 3 thoroughly secured that. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House who were opposed to protective tariffs and to artificially keeping foreign goods out of the country, ought to join with the Irish Members in keeping in the Bill a clause that would have the effect of not artificially keeping religious teaching out of the University. The House ought clearly to understand the position. The effect of the Amendment inserted by the Lords would be this. There were to be no tests for teachers or students; no compulsion for students to attend religious instruction or religious worship; but it would be open to any denomination by private enterprise, and out of private funds, to erect a chapel for the purpose of religious worship, whether it was in Belfast or in Dublin. The question of the site, which in the first instance would be secured by public, money, was dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford on the Report stage of the Bill. The University was to be a free University; no one was excluded from it on the ground of any particular religion; but the Bill as it now came down from the Lords left it open to any denomination, by their enterprise and their enthusiasm for their religion, to erect a chapel at which the students of that particular denomination, under no compulsion except the compulsion of conscientious belief in their religion, might attend their religious worship. He thought that with regard to this Bill the Nonconformists had behaved admirably, and that, notwithstanding any taunt that might be levelled against them from the front Opposition bench, they might go to their constituencies with the consciousness and satisfaction of having done more in a few years of liberal administration to settle this great question, than the Unionist Party had been able to accomplish in twenty years. The opposition to this Amendment was some what narrow. The Amendment if allowed to stand would have the effect of conferring freedom upon the University. The Nationalist Members, in making this protest, were by no means indifferent to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. On the contrary, they were extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to those hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who had principles as logical and pressed them as logically to a conclusion as did they who sat on the Irish benches; but he simply wished to say that Nationalist Members would feel it their duty to vote in favour of the Lords Amendment and against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

said the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken in a very unjust manner towards what he was pleased to call the Tory Party. He presumed he meant the Unionist Party. If a Bill to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland out of public funds had been proposed from that side of the House every Member of the Nonconformist Party opposite would have raised such an agitation against it that no Unionist Party could have carried it.

said he might not have conveyed his meaning precisely. He was perfectly willing to recognise the frank and generous way in which the Tory or Unionist Party had behaved, but it did not come very well from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to make rather cheap party capital at the expense of the Nonconformists in view of the fact that his Party had been in office for nearly twenty years and did not face the problem which the Chief Secretary had solved.

did not think it could be said that his right hon. friend had attempted to make, party capital. They had to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the successful way in which he had given this University, a denominational one—no other kind would have satisfied the people of Ireland—and it was more hypocrisy not to acknowledge and describe it as an endowed Roman Catholic University supported out of public money. The other question on which his right hon. friend had to be congratulated was the very cheap price at which he had secured Nonconformist support, viz., the refusal to allow any place of worship to be erected by private funds. They had swallowed the camel and strained at the little goat.

expressed deep regret that the Government had found it necessary to take up the position which they had adopted. The whole object of their labours for many weeks past had been to give the Roman Catholics the kind of University which they would like, and on this point, where the religious feelings of the nation were deeply touched, they proposed to refuse a little parcel of ground on which a chapel might be built by private benefaction. It seemed a most narrow, technical, and lamentable ground to take up. What to hon. Gentlemen opposite was a more matter of the maintenance of the undenominational formula was to those for whom the University was designed a matter which touched them in their daily life. At present there was no proposal, because there was no money, to build a residential college. But one of the very first objects of private benefaction, and he hoped also of some State help, would be the erection of a proper residential college within the grounds of the University, and when it came to a residential college it would be a matter of extreme pain to the members of the college that that which had been associated with college life from time immemorial in all the great Universities, should by the fiat of that House be denied to them in Ireland. Even though they insisted, probably rightly, on having a technically undenominational University, was it necessary that they also should have an irreligious University? That was the light in which it would present itself to the people of Ireland, and he deeply regretted that that great gift, long delayed, but at last conferred upon the Irish people, should be marred by this graceless act.

said the Government could hardly be congratulated on their consistency in regard to this particular Amendment. The Chief Secretary accepted it in Committee, but gave way in the House, and if he was to be consistent in his inconsistency he might have accepted the decision come to by the other House. He found it difficult to use harsh words against the Chief Secretary because he felt indebted to him for the measure as a whole, but he felt that the action the Government were now taking was a sign of great weakness. It was simply giving way to the most extraordinary exhibition of narrow-minded bigotry. He should certainly give a hearty vote for the Amendment.

said there had been a considerable amount of cheap and vulgar sneering at the position taken up by the Nonconformists, and remarks of a similar nature to those of the noble Lord had been made in another place. The position taken up by the Nonconformists was represented as very narrow and bigoted, and when it was proposed to leave out this Amendment from the Lords there was at once an insistance that it was of the greatest importance. He respected the good feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to it, but, at the same time, Nonconformists had their feelings too, and their position was this: they had recognised from the start that the University in the South of Ireland and the University in the North of Ireland would become denominational Universities, from the very fact that in the South there was a large preponderance of Catholics and in the North a large preponderance of Protestants. They as Nonconformists and Liberals could no more object to that than they could object to a county council, or a local authority, in Wales being Nonconformist from the simple fact that most of the electors were Nonconformist. Their position had been quite consistent. They had endeavoured to say that when they were passing a Bill, although it created two Universities which would inevitably become denominational, the Bill itself should not be a denominational Bill. If the Amendment were permitted to go into the Bill, and they allowed a chapel to be built either in the North or in the South, from the very nature of the case that chapel would be a sectarian one. It must belong to some particular denomination, and whatever the denomination was the University would be stamped with that denominational mark. They thought it far better that the private benefactors who were ready to erect a chapel should erect it outside the precincts of the University, and by so doing their religious faith and aspirations would be completely satisfied.

expressed the deepest regret that the Government had not seen their way to concede this point. In Trinity College there was an ancient chapel, the symbol of the Protestant religion, and services were held there. It was, after all, a poor thing to provide a University presumably for Irish Catholics with a proviso that there should be no chapel within its precincts for the celebration of divine worship according to the Catholic religion. They were committing a great mistake. While respecting the Government for the way in which they had dealt with a very thorny question, he should be compelled to go into the division lobby against them.

also desired to express his regret that the Chief Secretary had been unable to accept the Amendment. All the circumstances connected with the establishment of the University must be regarded as exceptional. They were called for by the fact that the Roman Catholics in Ireland were unable to accept the facilities for higher education which were provided in the present University of Dublin. When this Bill became an Act, Dublin would enjoy the exceptional privilege of being, he believed, the only city in Europe except one in which there were two Universities. In making this gift to the Irish Roman Catholics, he very much regretted that Parliament, by refusing to accept this Amendment, should accompany the gift by what would always be regarded as a grievance by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He could not conceive any reason why the University, which would be governed almost, if not quite, exclusively by Roman Catholics, the professors of which would be mainly Roman Catholics, and in which the students themselves would be of one religion, should be refused the privilege of possessing a chapel in which the students might worship according to their religion. It was to him of the essence of the gift that it should be acceptable to the recipients and be welcomed by them. It was such gifts that equally blessed givers and receivers. He had felt considerable interest in the Bill, and he appealed to hon. Members opposite to show a generous spirit in dealing with the matter.

said the hon. Member for Cambridge University had spoken of the graceless refusal of the demand. This chapel was never demanded at all either by politicians or bishops. The hon. Member himself in his good nature gratuitously proposed the chapel and so started the whole difficulty. It was precisely because they regarded them as free Universities that they desired that they should not be handicapped by a very prominent sign of exclusiveness. It was precisely because they regarded them as in theory undenominational that they desired to preclude as much denominationalism as possible, and especially that which would peculiarly stamp the University as denominational. But it was not at all surprising that those who desired to make out that these Universities were entirely denominational should seek to add a chapel in order that they might be as denominational as possible.

said he was very much surprised at the changed attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He remembered, when they were debating the point in Committee as to whether there should be power given whereby a site for the erection of a chapel might be provided even out of the funds of the University, the right hon. Gentleman himself protested at what he described as the rather narrow spirit that some Members were manifesting. The right hon. Gentleman thought then that inasmuch as no chapel was to be paid for out of the funds of the University, and no Chair of theology and no professor of theology would receive a penny of public money, it was only proper that at least a site within the grounds of the University might be provided. At a later stage that power of providing a site was taken away, and now they found the right hon. Gentleman had completely veered round. He certainly thought hon. Members were taking a rather ungenerous and narrow view of the matter. It was admitted by hon. Members below the gangway that the Universities would be denominational from the very fact that a large preponderance of Roman Catholics resided in one portion of the country, and a great preponderance of Protestants in the other. The fact was incapable of contradiction. Why not meet it in as fair and generous a manner as possible?

What about minorities?

said there would be two minorities. Minorities were always right it was said, and he remembered the right hon. Gentleman saying that suffering was the badge of all their tribe. He would not like to retort that the minority would have to suffer, but he could not conceive any minority actuated by such a spirit that they thought themselves compelled to suffer if some other people were given an opportunity of following their worship in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as to certain old and famous Universities having chapels within their precincts. It seemed to him a very narrow view they were taking in not allowing a pious donor to hand over a few thousand pounds wherewith to erect a chapel. After all, the Bill made it impossible that a penny of public funds should go to any faculty of theology. There was no theologian to be endowed out of the funds of the University and there was to be no religious or denominational test. There was no compulsory attendance at Divine worship. The Bill was a splendid Bill framed on most generous and democratic lines, and he certainly thought it was rather an unhappy ending that this tinge of narrowness and exclusion should come into what was otherwise a very desirable measure.

said that he had voted for the chapel at an earlier stage and he would support it again. It would be ungracious to spoil the Bill by refusing the power to erect a chapel; it was straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.

said that everybody understood what a chapel meant. Every other part of this University was liable to change according to the requirements that arose in the course of time, but he understood a Roman Catholic chapel was a consecrated building whose purpose could not be changed. That made the whole difference, and he thought that that consideration might have made some difference in the minds of Roman Catholics. That was an argument which cut two ways. In the case of an ardent Roman Catholic he could quite understand the desire that the building consecrated to that use should never by any possibility be devoted to any other use. On what terms was this University going to be made denominational?