asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give the names of the qualified architects employed by the Government or the Government of India to prepare the accepted scheme of Town Planning for the New Delhi; whether any of these qualified architects so employed have since been given an order to prepare plans for acceptance for any of the new Imperial buildings in Delhi, and, if so, which; and, if any, whether he can give the estimated approximate cost of each, whether large public buildings or small public buildings?

The only qualified architect who was a member of the Delhi Town Planning Committee was Mr. E. L. Lutyens. Mr. Lutyens, conjointly with Mr. Herbert Baker, has been given a commission to prepare designs for Government House and two secretarial blocks. The estimated cost cannot at present be given.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received requests for pension allowances from the engineers of the Imperial branch in the Public Works Department; whether the matter is still under consideration; when the requests for pensions were first made; and, if the matter is still unsettled, when any announcement of policy will be made?

The Secretary of State is aware that petitions have been submitted by engineers of the Public Works Department asking for increased pension allowances, but the petitions have not yet been transmitted by the Government of India. The conditions of pension come within the scope of the Public Services Commission's inquiry, and it is proposed to await the Commission's Report before arriving at a decision on the petition in question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total number of Christian soldiers and of non-Christian soldiers, respectively, serving under His Majesty's Colours in India, and how much money from the revenues of India was paid in the last financial year for religious buildings, religious services, and religious ministers in India for Christian and for non-Christian religions, respectively?

The total number of Christian and non-Christian soldiers, British and Indian, are 83,806 and 150,624, respectively. The Government of India report that last year the total Army charges for religious ministrations were: For services and ministers for Christian troops, Rs. 4,35,000; for non-Christian troops, Rs. 22,000. Complete information of the charges on account of religious buildings for the troops has not yet been furnished. I will let my hon. Friend have it as soon as it is received from India.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India to what use it has been finally decided to put Belvedere; and whether the art and historical treasures for the Victoria Memorial Hall are only temporarily housed therein?

So far as the Secretary of State is aware, no final decision has been arrived at.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a number of petitions have been addressed to the Secretary of State through the ordinary channels from members of the various Indian education services against the proposed appointment of an outsider to the headship of the Bengal service; and whether any decision on the subject has yet been arrived at by the Government?

The Secretary of State has received the memorials referred to. The appointment to which they relate has been made in the circumstances described in the explanation published by the Government of Bengal, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to my hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the cost of new ships for the Navy and of old age pensions, incurred in the year 1910, was met from the proceeds of the taxes on land and property levied under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and if he will give the same information as regards the years 1911 and 1912?

The yield of the taxes in question has already been given to the House, and I must leave the hon. Member to make his own calculations.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the speeches he made in August and September, 1909, in which he defended those discredited taxes on the assumption that in 1910 and subsequent years they Would be largely paying for old age pensions and to provide battleships?

Certainly, £455,000 was provided last year.

May I ask whether anything has been derived for the present, year from the payment of those?

Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the revenue returns he will find that is so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Manchester Law Society's objection to the last paragraph of Clause 9 of the Revenue Bill, providing that a decision of the Commissioners under the Clause shall be final; and, if so, whether he is prepared to omit that paragraph?

The Manchester Law Society have communicated to me their objection to the provision referred to by the hon. Member, but as there is an Amendment on the Paper on the subject of this provision it does not appear to me convenient to deal with it in answer to a question.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will ascertain and say whether any designs for the elevations of the new College of Art at South Kensington, the new Industrial Museum, and the new extensions of the Admiralty buildings have been prepared by the permanent staff of the Office of Works; whether these designs may now be placed in the Tea Room, so that Members may have an opportunity of seeing the different styles of architecture which have been adopted; and if he will say whether the estimates of £65,000, £45,000, and £25,000, sanctioned by Parliament for these three public buildings, were prepared without any designs having been submitted or approved?

Designs have not been prepared, either of the elevation of the new College of Art or of the new extension of the Admiralty buildings. An elevation for the new Industrial Museum has been prepared and can be exhibited in the Tea Room, if desired. The estimates were made from sketch plans prepared in the Department, but not settled in detail.

asked the number and names of the qualified architects permanently employed by the Office of Works, as well as the dates when they first joined that office; whether all or any of them are fellows of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and, if either, the dates when they became fellows?

The total number of architects of all grades on the establishment of the Office of Works is sixty-one. Of these three are fellows, twenty-four associates, and four licentiates of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The three fellows attained their rank in 1891, 1906, and 1912, respectively.

asked at what cost in thousands of pounds a public building is regarded officially by the Office of Works as a large public building and a small public building; if he will say at the same time whether the new College of Art, which is estimated to cost £65,000, and has been officially classified as a small public building, is to be a three-storey building; and if he will say how many square feet of ground this new building is to cover?

The Board has no fixed scale under which a building is classified as a large or a small public building. As plans for the new College of Art have not yet been definitely settled, it is premature to say how many stories it may have. The area of the site is about 16,630 square feet, which will be covered by the buildings with the exception of the necessary areas for light and air.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the First Commissioner of Works has been directed to the defective bath room accommodation in the House of Commons; and whether the First Commissioner will give directions that this deficiency in accommodation be rectified by the requisite improvements and the providing of a greater number of bath rooms in the interval between the prorogation and the meeting of Parliament?

There are four baths at present provided within the precincts and they have not hitherto been found inadequate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this night week there was a great demand for bath rooms, that one bath room was crowded by five Members presumably wishing to get in, and that there was such a scene of confusion as has not been witnessed at any bathing place since the Pool of Siloam?

The facts may be as the hon. Member states, but in this case no miracle followed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that amongst the five Members there was no Nationalist?

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Board of Works were responsible for the recent alterations in Westminster Abbey; if so, whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which has been expressed as to the seating arrangements therein at the recent ceremony of the Order of the Bath: and whether, in case of further alterations, the provision of adequate accommodation to which they are entitled can be ensured for the Knights Commanders and Companions of the Order on any such or other future public occasions in which they are interested or concerned?

Neither the First Commissioner nor his Department were in any way responsible for the arrangements at the recent ceremony of the Order of the Bath in Westminster Abbey.

asked the Postmaster-General if a new class of assistant engineers has been formed in connection with the telephone service; if, in filling these positions, a large number of second-class engineers have been passed over in favour of men of a lower grade in the service; and, if so, the number of men so passed over, and the reasons for adopting this course?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question on 11th June, of which I will send him a copy. The number of officers affected is sixty-five.

Is it not a fact that the engineers who were excluded were in many cases officers of long standing, whose knowledge would in the ordinary course of events have been advantageous to the telephone system in general?

A new class of higher qualifications was instituted, and the officers who were excluded, although of many years' service, had not the necessary qualifications for promotion to the new class.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the House any approximate estimate of the number of secondary schools in England and Wales other than those which receive rate or State aid?

In addition to the secondary schools in receipt of Grants there are 101 schools which have been inspected by the Board and recognised by them as efficient. From the Public Schools' Year Book, the Girls' School Year Book, and a published list of preparatory schools, it would appear that there are, in addition, 376 preparatory schools for boys, 386 secondary schools for boys, and 227 secondary schools for girls. No approximate estimate can be given of the total number of private schools outside the above categories, but it probably amounts to some thousands.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of children of each year of elementary school age who left school in 1911–12?

I am unable to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks. No statistics on the subject have been collected by the Board.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advantage of going back to the practice which I believe prevailed before 1903 of publishing these statistics in the Annual Volume of the Board of Education?

I have considered how far it would be possible to supply such statistics, but it seemed to me that the value of the information given would not be equal to the labour involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the man Clayton, who was sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment for conspiracy, is being watched by the police; when he was last released; and if it is proposed to rearrest him?

Clayton was released on temporary discharge on 23rd June. I can give no further information with regard to a man who is now a fugitive from justice.

When the man was released on 23rd June, did not the Home Office take the necessary steps to know where he was going during the time of his parole?

This man is now a fugitive from justice. If it is possible to rearrest him no doubt that will be done.

In future in important cases like this will steps be taken in order that the persons concerned shall not leave these shores?

Steps are taken, but the steps are not invariably successful.

Why not let them all go if they want to?

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Lake, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for conspiracy in May last, although the verdict of the jury was accompanied by a recommendation for leniency of sentence; whether he is aware that Miss Lake was a business employé, and had never made any inciting speeches or had ever been connected with any acts of militancy; that before sentence she was given no opportunity of making a statement of facts which her counsel had informed her would be better stated by herself; that since her conviction she has been for the most part in solitary confinement, without books or writing materials, and is allowed only one visit of fifteen minutes per month; and whether, in view of the circumstances of this case, he can see his way to remitting the remainder of the sentence?

My right hon. Friend is well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and recognises that, although she was undoubtedly guilty of conspiracy with the other defendants, Miss Lake's part was a comparatively subordinate one. She is enjoying the privilege of Rule 243A, and is allowed a liberal supply of books, and, for special reasons, is also allowed the use of writing materials for purposes of study. Her husband has been allowed special extensions of time for his visits. The Home Secretary would be very glad to be able to advise the remission of the remainder of her sentence, but he can only do so if she will give him an assurance that she will not for the future break the law.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the sentence of imprisonment recently passed upon Mr. George Lansbury; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of this case, he will take some action in the matter?

Mr. Lansbury has been released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act after serving only three days. He is liable to return to prison, but it is open to him at any time to bring his sentence of imprisonment to an end by finding sureties to keep the peace.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is really in respect of an expression of political opinion that Mr. Lansbury is now under sentence of imprisonment? Has he considered the fact that if the law is allowed to take its course against Mr. Lansbury while no proceedings whatever are taken against the right hon. Gentleman for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), it will bring the administration of the law into great discredit?

That is raising another point. Mr. Lansbury is under sentence; he has served only three days of his sentence, and he can at any moment bring his imprisonment to an end by finding sureties to keep the peace. The concluding part of the question appears to rest rather with Mr. Lansbury than with the Home Secretary.

Has Mr. Lansbury been proved to have committed a breach of the peace?

I am concerned with the sentence. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he has not yet served.

The hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Lansbury can bring his imprisonment to a close by finding sureties. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether Mr. Lansbury can bring his imprisonment to a close honourably by giving such sureties?

That is a question entirely for Mr. Lansbury.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the London Sessions on 10th July, when a woman giving the name of Queenie Gerald pleaded guilty to charges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the second division; whether when she was arrested she had in her possession over £200 in gold and notes in a handbag; whether the three girls on whose account she was charged were aged seventeen, seventeen, and eighteen years, respectively; whether the letters and documents seized by the police when the flat was raided showed that Gerald had also been acting as a procuress for rich people staying in London; whether these letters were in Court in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, but only one of the names contained in them was disclosed, whilst the names of the three girl victims had already been made public during the preliminary proceedings connected with the case; and whether, in the interests of the public and the efficient administration of the Act, he will now give the House the names of the men implicated?

The Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case. It is the fact that money to the amount mentioned was found in the woman's possession, and the ages of the girls whom she employed were as stated in the question. It is true that the documents showed she was keeping an establishment for immoral women frequented by wealthy persons; but there was no evidence whatever that she was guilty of an offence within Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, of procuring any woman or girl not being a common prostitute. The case was conducted by the solicitor to the Metropolitan Police, not by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The letters were in the possession of the prosecution. The name of one man whose letters showed he was acting as an agent for the woman was mentioned by counsel in Court. Other names appeared in a diary kept by Gerald, but these names were not relevant to the case, and there was nothing to show that they were the names of persons who in fact frequented the premises. As the woman pleaded guilty to all the seven counts of the indictment, the facts were not given in evidence in Court; but in any case it would have been an injustice to persons who were possibly innocent to have brought their names into the case, and for the same reason I cannot mention them now.

May I ask whether the Home Secretary does not consider that the publication of the names of men who tempt women in this way by offering large sums of money would not act as a deterrent; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the names of certain very prominent men, including those of members of the Cabinet, are being mentioned in the rumours outside?

I certainly was not aware of that. If these men were guilty of any offence, of course they would be prosecuted. That may, in my hon. Friend's opinion, justify the necessity for changing the law, but as the law now stands none of these men whose names appeared in the diary can be proceeded against.

Why were not the facts of the case, including the names of these men, submitted by the prosecuting counsel, so that the judge might have had the opportunity of weighing up the case in all seriousness before pronouncing judgment?

As my hon. Friend knows, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the seven counts of the indictment; under these circumstances no evidence was proffered or permissible. The only thing that counsel did was to make an opening statement, as is always done. The names of the men were not relevant to that particular issue.

Was it not stated in Court that there was a ledger kept with the amounts opposite the names of each of those who had paid this woman sums of money, and is not that proof enough that they were connected with her sufficient to justify prosecution in each case?

I am advised that the facts and the evidence in this case did not justify prosecution in the sense that prosecution would be successful. As the hon. Member no doubt is aware, the mere fact of a man going to a house of this kind is not in itself a criminal offence.

Were there not letters found from men inviting this woman to procure young girls for immoral purposes, and does not that of itself constitute an offence under the Act?

We are advised that nothing that was disclosed in the letters would make any of the men who wrote them amenable to criminal prosecution.

How many letters were found? Were they of such a nature as to induce the belief that this woman was acting as a procuress? If so, why was she not charged with being a procuress?

The Noble Lord knows that there was no charge against this woman at Quarter Sessions under Section 2 of the Act of 1885, and the reason for that is quite well known to him, because the women who were on the premises were common prostitutes or women of known immoral character. Under these circumstances no charge of procuration, as such, was ever brought against her, either in the first instance before the sitting magistrate or in the second instance at Quarter Sessions. The charge upon which she was indicted, to which she pleaded guilty, and on which she was sentenced, was under Section 7 of the Act of 1912.

I do not think I made the question clear. I asked the hon. Gentleman how many letters there were, and whether they were of such a nature as to lead to the belief that this woman was a procuress, and, if so, why she was not charged with being a procuress on the evidence of the letters?

My information is that none of the letters would have supported a charge of procuration under Section (2) of the Act of 1885, and for the reason I have already given the Noble Lord.

How many letters are there?

I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will call attention to this matter.

asked the Home Secretary if the recent statement of the police authorities to the effect that the tales about decoying girls by means of bogus nurses and other startling disappearances were untrue was made with his knowledge and concurrence; whether this warning is meant to apply generally to such stories; and if he can say what is the motive to which the police attribute the invention of such narratives?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on the 29th of last month, to the effect that many tales of the spiriting away of girls have been circulated in London, but that in no case have the police been able to find any evidence of their truth. The police know of no motive for the invention of these reports, many of which are obviously variants of the same story.

Does my hon. Friend not know that these stories first had their origin when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was before this House?

I have no special information upon that point.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increasing number of girls of tender years parading the streets; if he has any explanation to offer; and does he still persist in refusing a thorough inquiry?

In the opinion of experienced police officers there is no increase in the number of girls of tender years parading the streets. They report that there is on the part of many women who walk the streets a tendency to dress in such a manner as to appear much younger than they are.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Marylebone Borough Council has been considering the offer of Lord Howard de Walden for the purchase of the freehold, or for a 999 years' lease, of Nos. 34, 35, 36, and 37, Aybrook Street, now held by the council on a lease expiring in May, 1961, at a ground rent of £176 a year; whether he is aware that the terms offered for the freehold were £10,000, or for a 999 years' lease the annual payment of £176 and a premium of £6,000, which offers were declined; and whether he will promote legislation in order to obtain for local authorities security of tenure of their premises on equitable terms?

I understand the facts to be as stated in my hon. Friend's question. I am afraid I can make no promise of legislation to the effect suggested.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introduce some legislation to give local authorities better terms than that—fifty-six years' purchase of the fee simple for property for public purposes?

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the inquiry which it instituted in the case of Edith Plumb, was conducted by a barrister or solicitor; whether he saw Edith Plumb and took her evidence, asked her what inmates could give evidence, and took their evidence; whether he took the evidence of the police who saw her at the Court, or the rooms near the Court, or of the Court Missionary; whether she was accompanied to the Court by any women; whether she was given no food except bread and water for two days, and were they consecutive days; by whose orders was this punishment given; by whose orders was she prosecuted; did the guardians hear her before or after she was punished; and did they hear her before she was prosecuted?

No formal inquiry has been held by my Department, but two of my inspectors, both of them barristers, have investigated the circumstances of the case. On the subject generally I may refer to the reply I gave to questions addressed to me on the 24th July.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is on the instructions or with the sanction of his Department that landowners and others desiring to build cottages in rural districts are required, under the by-laws of the rural district council, not merely to furnish plans of such cottages to their inspector and agree such plans with him, but subsequently to fill up and return to the surveyor of such council four separate notices as to the progress of the structure, the first when the damp course is laid, the second when the foundations are completed and ready to be covered up, the third when the drains are completed and ready to be covered up, and the fourth after the completion of the building; whether he realises that such action on the part of the local sanitary authority often acts as a serious deterrent to landowners willing and anxious to erect cottages in their localities; and whether he will take steps to refuse Departmental sanction to such by-laws?

The present rural model series does not require the first two notices mentioned in the question. Some local authorities, however, have asked for a by-law requiring a notice when the damp course is laid, and I am advised that this is not unreasonable. A requirement as to a notice when the foundations of a building are completed is included in the urban model series, and is also in force in some rural districts. If an opportunity is to be given for the inspection of buildings during the course of their construction, it is only reasonable that notice of the progress of the work should be given.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that such official fussiness on the part of district councils acts as a serious detriment to cottage building in rural districts?

I do not admit the existence of the alleged fussiness. It is not unreasonable for a local authority to ask that cottages should have a damp course, that they should have reasonably dry foundations, and that the builder or owner of the cottage should build it so that it will be, when completed, in a habitable condition.

Is it necessary, in order to effect that, that the owner should have to fill in five separate forms?

The forms that the owner now fills in are the simplest possible. Anything that the hon Member can suggest to reduce their number or complexity, I will willingly accept; but we must insist that owners shall build cottages that are reasonably decent.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the payment of travelling expenses to members of county insurance committees and other public bodies, he will introduce legislation to sanction similar payments to members of boards of guardians attending the meetings of their authorities?

I am not in a position to promise legislation of the kind suggested.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the increase of loss of life at sea during recent years, he will take steps, either by the appointment of a Departmental Committee of inquiry or otherwise, to raise the load line or make such further Regulations as may diminish preventable loss of life at sea?

Some time ago I appointed a Departmental Committee on Load Line, which is now investigating the whole subject.

asked for the date on which the Irish Provident Assurance Company went into liquidation; what interest has accumulated since that date; and what is the cause of the delay in winding up the company?

The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, went into liquidation, under an order of the Irish Court, on 24th April, 1911. As I have already pointed out on several occasions, in reply to questions by the hon. Member for North Westmeath, the liquidation of the company is under the control of the Irish Court, and the Board of Trade have no knowledge or jurisdiction in the matter. I am, however, informed by the solicitors acting for the liquidator that an order has been obtained from the Court authorising the payment, in November next, of a first dividend to the creditors of the company.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communications which go to show that not only did the clerks at the Darlington Labour Exchange represent their grievances in a proper manner, but that their intention to strike if satisfaction was not secured was known; whether he has received a copy of the communication sent by the clerks to the divisional inspector on 23rd May; and whether, in any inquiry into this matter, he will allow a representative of the Clerks' Union to be present in the interests of the men?

I have considered very carefully all the documents in this case, including the communication referred to in the question. I see no reason to modify my opinion on the action of the clerks concerned as conveyed to my hon. Friend in answer to his previous question of the 30th July, or to hold any further inquiry on the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the recent annual meeting of the British Medical Association at Brighton a resolution was adopted, with one, dissentient, by the ophthalmological section, and recommended to the council of the British Medical Association, that the sight tests of the Board of Trade are not satisfactory and that an inquiry is urgently needed in the interests of the mercantile marine and of the nation; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in respect to this recommendation?

I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that such a resolution was carried. The Board of Trade have, however, received no communication from the association on the subject, and I am not aware of the grounds on which the resolution was based. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the sight tests now used were adopted on the recommendation of a strong Departmental Committee which recently investigated the whole question, and I see no necessity for any further Committee of Inquiry.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the overcrowded condition of the trains in various parts of this country, and to the delay caused thereby in their arrival at their destinations and the failure to make period connections generally, and especially during the Bank Holiday; and whether he will make representations to the railway companies in order to prevent a repetition of this inconvenience to the public?

The great pressure of holiday traffic at this time of year, and particularly on or before the Bank Holiday, is bound to result in a certain amount of public inconvenience, and I am afraid that some delays are unavoidable. Generally speaking, I think that the railway companies make creditable efforts to cope with the traffic, but if my hon. Friend has any special case in mind and will furnish me with particulars, I will consider whether I can usefully make representations to the companies concerned.

Has the right hon. Gentleman himself ever been delayed on those railways, and, if he has, may I ask is it not much more likely that ordinary individuals would suffer greater inconvenience?

In these times there is much more pressure than ordinarily. If my hon. Friend will bring any special case under my notice I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Ordnance Survey authorities have served notice of discharge on John Kellegher, P.T.O., an employé of theirs at present stationed in Rathowen, county Westmeath; and, if so, will he say why this man, who has spent seven years in the service, is to be so treated?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. John Kellegher is a labourer, and, on the completion of the work on which he was engaged, will, with others, be discharged.

asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that the Report of His Majesty's inspector, who visited Butlocks Heath School in February last, stated that matters could only be remedied by the removal of the present head master; whether he is aware that the managers have informed the education authority that the head master should seek an appointment elsewhere, and that the Hampshire Education Committee refuse to take any action whatever; whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Education will now intervene; and (2) whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Hampshire Education Authority on the 25th July no action was taken concerning Butlocks Heath School, near Southampton; whether he will now call upon the authority to remedy the conditions which have now continued over six months; or whether he intends to take such action himself as will put an end to the grievances of ratepayers and parents?

The report of His Majesty's inspector said nothing whatever about the removal of the head master. I understand that the managers of the school and the elementary education sub-committee of the county education committee have passed resolutions expressing the opinion that the head master should seek an appointment elsewhere, and that the proceedings of the elementary education sub-committee were confirmed at the meeting of the education committee on 25th July last. I do not think that any occasion has arisen which would warrant me in interfering with the discretion of the local education authority in the administration of their area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he previously stated that, on 25th July, public action would be taken, and that although the local authority met on that date no public action has been taken and no hope is held out to the ratepayers?

My recollection is that I said I could not anticipate what action the authority might take when they met on 25th July, but I did not feel I was justified in interfering with the discretion of the local authority in this matter.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he can now give any information to the House with regard to the alleged non-payment of insurance claims to Scottish farmers by a Scottish insurance company, as referred to by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow on 21st July; and can he give the name of any farmer who has been treated in this way?

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware that the farmer referred to is alleged to have given the wrong age of the animal when insuring, and that the delay in paying the claim was in consequence; and, further, that he threatened the company that if they did not pay up at once he would pillory them by raising the question in Parliament; and, further, that the farmer is now Member for the College Division of Glasgow?

I am not aware of these facts.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business he proposes to take to-night after the Insurance Bill?

After the Insurance Bill is disposed of to-night we hope to take—

• Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill: Report.
• Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill: Report.
• Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill: Second Reading.
• Wine Privileges Abolition Bill: Second Reading.
• Misdescription of Fabrics Bill.—Report.
• Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill: Report.
• Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) Bill: Report.

Is it proposed; to take the Third Reading of the Insurance Bill to-night?

I understand that that is absolutely necessary.

I think the Clause that I am proposing to amend has given rise to a controversy which, in my opinion, is altogether disproportionate to the abuses alleged which all Members of the House desire to see removed. None will deny that abuses in the administration of maternity benefit have been established, and, so far as we can, we are prepared to do what we can to redress the evils that do exist. On the other hand, when seeking to remove one abuse, we have to take great care that we are not setting up abuses on the other side equally objectionable. In my opinion, the fact that there are a few bad husbands in the country constitutes no good reason for panic legislation against all husbands. I believe that the great class of working-class husbands are really decent people, and are always concerned to do the right thing by their womenfolk on the occasion that we have under consideration. I object to the Clause as it stands in the Bill because it legislates against a whole sex in the community, and I very strongly resent the implication that working-class husbands cannot be trusted to do the right thing towards their wives. I recognise, with other hon. Members, that in a few isolated cases maternity benefit has been abused, and, therefore, I was quite agreeable and even sought to find some means of preventing the repetition of such abuses as did exist. I acknowledge that the problem is a very difficult one. I do not think that if you alter the original Act and say that maternity benefit shall be the exclusive legal right of the woman, you can be satisfied that no further abuses will arise. Everybody with practical experience will agree that there are indifferent women as well as indifferent men, and if you recognise that abuses may arise whatever provisions you establish, I think you will also have to appreciate the fact that a mere declaration is not sufficient to meet the case we are now considering. It has already been decided upstairs that the new Bill shall declare that the maternity benefit in every case shall be the mother's benefit. I desire it to be perfectly well understood that I am not disputing that in the slightest degree, and that is not brought into question by the Amendment I am now submitting to the House.

I believe it was the intention of the original Act that the maternity benefit should be the benefit of the woman and everybody is concerned to see to it that, as far as practical measures can be devised, the mother and the child shall have the full advantage of the maternity benefit. But when you have made that declaration you have not solved the real difficulty. A number of societies to my knowledge have recognised that some men are not to be fully trusted with this 30s., and they have exercised a discretion under which they have paid the 30s. direct to the wife of the insured man. They have felt that perhaps this might be open to challenge, and they have represented to some of us that the certificate for the receipt by either the wife or the husband should be accepted as a sufficient discharge of the liability of that society. That is the real problem which we ought to have contemplated. There was no occasion to go beyond that. Once we depart from it, we are beset with a vast number of difficulties which we are compelled to consider. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) in perfect good faith introduced this question in the Committee upstairs, and recognised that after the statutory declaration some administrative provision must be incorporated. Thus, the first proposal was that the benefit should be the exclusive property of the woman; but because of the practical difficulty of a society getting a receipt from a woman placed in that extremely delicate position, it was also proposed that she should be allowed to nominate some other woman to draw the benefit on her behalf.

My attitude on this question has been very much misrepresented, because I made a speech following upon that proposal. My objection was to the fact that it was then proposed to draw any woman into this transaction, whilst expressly excluding the husband. I have a deep-rooted objection to Parliament interfering as between man and wife, and to say by law or by implication that a man is not to be trusted to do right under these circumstances is in my opinion either to display a gross lack of knowledge of working-class husbands or to be desirous of setting up what is equally objectionable—almost a position of war between the sexes. That would lead to great disaster. The man is the insured person and the woman, because of the circumstances for which the benefit has been established, is the person entitled to get the full advantage of that benefit. Therefore, my view has been that it is a joint question as between husband and wife, and that Parliament would do wrong to say that it should be the legal property of one and that the other partner in the matter should be excluded by law from taking any part in administering the benefit thus paid. What happens in the ordinary working-class home? If this Act had been in existence prior to my coming to this House, my home would have received 30s. maternity benefit. I should have regarded it as a gross insult and an unwarrantable reflection on my character if Parliament had said, "We cannot trust you with 30s., and you shall not touch the benefit which comes into your home." The average workman at that time is forced to accept full responsibility for all home affairs. Every working man who has been through the experience knows that not only has he to have a Land in attending to the woman but he has to take charge of all the home affairs, and those who meddle with this matter do so without any knowledge of the actual circumstances of working-class home life. The hon. Gentleman very soon perceived that it was impossible to defend a proposal which brought in an outside woman, whilst at the same time excluding the husband. It was then proposed to substitute the word "person" for "woman." This did not remove the objection of certain of my colleagues on the Committee or of myself. We altogether object to third parties being brought into this matter at all. We object to persons being nominated for the purpose of receiving this benefit. One can quite see that some women would be subjected to extraordinary temptation if this principle of nomination were established. Certain people might approach her prior to maternity and offer to advance her money on the condition that she made a nomination in their favour. It was very soon apparent to most members of the Committee that the principle of nomination might open up possibilities of much graver abuses than those which have yet been proved under the administration of this Act.

4.0 p.m.

That is where we stand at the moment. The real point is whether persons shall be nominated for the receipt of this benefit or not. Various other proposals are being made to the effect that the wife should nominate some relative to receive the benefit on her behalf. It was pointed out by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cassel) that it was impossible in law to prove who is a relative and who is not. I am anxious to know whether it would be proposed to incorporate in this Bill the Prayer Book table of consanguinity. There again we have proved that there are insuperable difficulties in determining who is and who is not a relative of the woman entitled to this benefit. Furthermore, you are increasing the administrative difficulties of the various societies who have to administer this benefit. Has the sick visitor or the secretary, as the case may be, to inquire whether the person nominated is a relative, and has he, after the relative has been nominated, to inquire whether the person claiming the benefit is really the person whose name appears on the nomination paper? I respectfully submit that once we enter as between the man and the woman in this case we open such grave difficulties, administrative and otherwise, as to prove the utter impracticability of the proposal as it now stands in the Bill, and also the extreme desirability of accepting my Amendment. After all, the responsibility of providing for a woman must always rest with her husband. You propose, under the original Act, that this obligation shall be pressed upon him, but, if you in any way enact against the husband and say that he has no right even to touch this 30s., you must necessarily be weakening that claim which rests upon him. I have always understood that it is desirable, at any rate in this country, that we should recognise man and wife as being one in joint co-operation. My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), in the course of the Debate, introduced the Question of sick pay administration, and I should like to relate what actually happens in friendly society experience in respect of sick pay. I never drew sick pay but once in all my life from any of the friendly societies of which I am a member. In that case I was unable to draw the benefit myself. It was quite impossible for me to rise from my bed and sign a receipt for the money. But my wife drew the money on my behalf, she gave a receipt for what she received, and I think that you are bound to admit that that operation will follow in this case. When the woman herself is unable to sign, her husband must have the right to sign, both in the interests of the efficient administration of the society's affairs and because it is a matter of justice. This Amendment which I am proposing is strictly in accord with the present practice of friendly societies in the administration of other benefits.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that there is a great deal of consternation existent amongst friendly societies, and that there is a very insistent demand that the Amendment I am proposing should be accepted by the House. I am quite aware, on the other hand, that there is also an agitation against any alteration being made in the Bill as it came from upstairs, and, therefore, I am not going to place too much stress upon that portion of my argument. Still, I wish to emphasise the fact that you have a demand backed by the experience of societies which are administering benefits of a very similar character, and it is backed by them because they can see that great administrative troubles may arise under the Clause as it stands; they, therefore, express preference for the words which I am seeking to get incorporated in the Act. After all, their opinion is worth something from the administrative point of view. It has been suggested that I am seeking, by certain words in my Amendment, to undermine the statutory declaration of the first part of the Clause. But I stated upstairs that I have certainly no desire and no intention to undermine those words—to undermine the declarations that the benefit shall be the mother's benefit.

You voted against it.

My hon. Friend has had some experience of the extreme difficulty of taking a straight vote on a question of this nature. I spoke against cer- tain provisions in the Clause, but I have never questioned the declaration, and it will still stand as far as my Amendment is concerned. I am, however, given to understand that the concluding words of my Amendment—the words "apply it for the maintenance and care of the wife and child"—are objected to in some quarters. I should be glad to hear what arguments are to be adduced against those words. My colleagues and I are not concerned simply to defend words because we have put them down, but I am going to deny that our purpose in putting these words on the Paper is, as has been stated, to get round this declaration. We are of opinion—and we are, indeed, advised—that the retention of the words is desirable in the interests of appropriate administration. For what will happen? You declare that, in those cases where the husband has to draw the money, he must pay it to the wife. That is all very well. But the wife may be totally incapable of administering or using the money for the purposes for which it is intended. I do not see why the husband should be relieved of his responsibility. I do not see why, even by implication, you should say he shall not expend this money. In my opinion he is the person who ought to have the responsibility. He is the person who ought to be allowed to carry out these things in connection with his own home. But still I am not wedded to any particular form of words or to any particular word, and if it can be proved that it is open to reasonable interpretation that the retention of these words do in any way modify the preceding portion of the Clause, then I will be prepared to listen to any argument that may be put forward, and I will also be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made across the floor of the House.

I simply would like to add I am moving this Clause first, because I most strongly resent the implication that, because some few husbands are bad, it is competent for Parliament to legislate against all husbands. I want also to devise methods whereby the benefit goes to the purpose for which it is really intended. The Amendment I am moving has been put down in that spirit, whatever may be said to the contrary. Certain of my colleagues, as well as myself, have had actual experience in administering the affairs of friendly societies and trade unions. We know that under the Insurance Act the administration is already very complex and very difficult, and we have no desire to add to those complexities and those difficulties. In our view, if you allow either the wife or the husband to give a receipt in these circumstances, at the same time declaring that where the husband does receive the money, it is the intention of Parliament that it shall be exclusively devoted to the benefit of the woman and child at that period, I think you will have carried out the intentions of Parliament, and you will have made it possible for societies to administer this benefit efficiently and in full accord with the spirit of the Act of Parliament. It is for these reasons that I submit my Amendment to the consideration of the House.

I understand that the Resolution has been seconded and, therefore, we are discussing the question put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts). I am bound to say I shall be obliged most strenuously to disagree, not so much with the Resolution to which, however, I do object, as with the terms of the speech of the hon. Member upon this subject. There is no one who wishes to put any difficulty between man And wife in regard to the business of insurance and the administration of the maternity benefit; therefore those who are supporting the proposal already inserted, that for the future this benefit shall be considered as the benefit of the mother and not of the husband, are not actuated by that idea, neither do they believe that, in putting forward that they will do anything whatever to cause domestic disagreement between husband and wife. I, however, propose to deal with this question on a broader basis, and I would venture to suggest that this discussion should not take the line that there is a possibility of causing disagreement where disagreement does not already exist. It is a moral certainty, however you decide this, that in cases where domestic felicity already exists nothing that you do will alter that; therefore, it is not on that basis in the slightest degree that this matter should be considered. I could understand, if it were a paternity benefit, paying it to the father. If it were understood that it was a paternity benefit the man might be entitled to it. But the mere description of the benefit is, I should imagine, sufficient to indicate whose property it really is.

The supposition underlying the argument of the hon. Member for Norwich, and the arguments that were adduced in Committee, is this: that by some means the benefit in cases where the wife herself is not an insured person is more the husband's than the wife's. I have never been able to understand that argument. My hon. Friend has asked us to look for a moment at the position of affairs in the ordinary home and the domestic relations of the workers of this country. Let us place ourselves in that position for a moment or two. The home is not exclusively the property of the man, because, I take it for granted that my hon. Friend will admit that the wife who looks after the children at home, who looks after the home of the worker, and who does all the drudgery in order to keep the family in decency, is really doing her share and in most cases the lion's share of keeping the home up. Really she is earning part of the wages that the man actually receives for the work which he does. She herself is contributing to his insurance by that work even though she herself is not an insured person. I venture to say she really earns half of the money that he pays and even half of the money which the employer pays towards the insurance, and therefore it is a joint contribution, not a contribution especially from the man. Consequently this maternity benefit by right and justice of every possible kind belongs to the woman and the woman only. Though I do not understand quite the technical bearings of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, as to whether it belittles in any way the first proposition that this benefit really belongs to the mother and is the mother's benefit, I do understand it is a whittling away of that proposition, and for that reason I give my most certain hostility to the proposal of my hon. Friend.

I venture to say that all this quibbling that if you do this or the other you will cause contention in the homes of the working people of the country is utterly beside the mark and has no foundation in fact. The workmen of the country are not so narrow as that. I could give illustrations of how things which look unjust are carried out at the present time, where workmen, apparently receiving no personal benefit themselves, are actually prepared to contribute towards the benefit of those who are less fortunately placed than themselves. You only supply medical benefit for the men who are insured, but there are cases where the employers have arranged, if their workmen agree, to deduct twopence a week so that medical benefit can be given to the wives and families of the men employed. It became a question whether the single men should contribute. I know a case in which at least 1,000 single men are allowing the twopence a week to be deducted from their own wages in order that medical benefit may be given to the wives and families of their mates who happen to be married. You do not find this fine chopping of rights and these technical objections in the relations of the working men. If Parliament had decided at the outset that maternity benefit was intended to be paid to the wife, and that no one but she had a right to give even a receipt for it, the workmen of the country would gladly have accepted such a proposition. I do not see any reason whatever why the Amendment should be put forward to belittle in any way the right of the woman to this benefit Which has been placed in the Bill by the Grand Committee upstairs.

I am also quite unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich. If there are men, as we are told, whose pride of manhood is outraged by the act that the 30s. is conveyed directly to their wives, I say those men do not deserve the encouragement of this House. It is obvious that nothing we can do will turn a bad man into a good man, or a miserable home into a happy home, but what we can do, what the Committee upstairs did, and what we hope this House will do, so far as Parliament can do it, is to lay it down that maternity benefit is the property of the mother and of no one else. Of course, we know that in ninety-nine homes out of a hundred the husband and wife will act together in perfect amity in laying out this money to the best advantage. There is only one small point in addition to what I have said. It has been brought to my notice—I have no intention of mentioning names, because it would obviously not be fair—that in two or three cases most well-meaning husbands have got hold of the maternity benefit and spent portions of it, as they thought to the best advantage, but, as their wives think, they have taken their money to a very bad market. They have bought things which were intended to be very beneficial to the wife and comforting to her, but which, in her opinion, have been useless. That has happened in two or three cases within the knowledge of people who have given me information. The State, rightly or wrongly—as we think rightly—has entered into a great scheme of compulsory insur- ance. We insist upon men insuring themselves, and women, too, for that matter. We insist upon employers paying money towards insurance, and we also provide money out of the taxpayers' pockets to add to the benefits in the time of sickness. There is nothing illegal, there is nothing foolish, and there is nothing tyrannical in saying that of the benefits that money can buy, we are entitled, on behalf of the future generations and on behalf of the women of this country, to earmark this maternity benefit as belonging to the woman and nobody else.

I really believe that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are unduly obsessed by the difficulties of this proposition. Everyone who knows them, knows that they have no hostility whatever to the working-class women of this country. I understand their argument to be that there is great difficulty in setting up machinery to deal with this question. I think that must be the gravamen of the Amendment, because I am certain they would not be very tender towards the feelings of men who are unworthy of confidence and need to be restrained by the law. We have passed laws protecting the women of every class. We have passed a law protecting people who make a marriage settlement, and it is not suggested that that is a deadly insult to the man about to be married. We have passed laws protecting married women's property, and it is not suggested that that was a deadly insult to the men of this country. I appeal to my hon. Friends below the Gangway to reconsider this question, even at this late hour, and to realise that they are doing a thing intensely resented by the women of this country, and which, I believe, will be unpopular with the men. So far as I have been able to consult the men in my own Constituency, and elsewhere they have been unanimously in favour of giving the women this maternity benefit. It is a pity to have a division of any kind on what must be a mere matter of machinery, but if the Amendment goes to a Division, I shall unhesitatingly vote against it.

I very much regret that already this Debate is turning on the question as to whether this benefit is the woman's benefit or the man's benefit. I have no hesitation in saying that I am in favour of this being the woman's benefit. That question was definitely settled upstairs. I say quite frankly that in my opinion this Amendment will not in any way reverse the decision arrived at upstairs as to whether or not it is the woman's benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen will be able to follow me; I am giving my own opinion. The best evidence of it is that when the proposal was made upstairs, on the first day the Committee were almost unanimous in making it the property of the woman. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were unanimous."] They were nearly unanimous.

It was carried unanimously.

The next day, when the Committee were face to face with the question of carrying out the decision, an entirely different aspect was placed on the situation. I want to approach the question purely from the standpoint of administration. How did this difficulty arise? There would have been no question raised on this Amending Bill, and there would have been nothing said as to whether or not it was the property of the woman or the man, had it not been for the fact that the insurance committees' auditors refused to accept the receipt of the woman for the payment of the 30s. The difficulty was created in this way: The majority of the approved societies were anxious, and rightly anxious, that the 30s. should reach the home as early as possible. Most of us connected with the organisations gave instructions that immediately the branch secretary or the local officer was acquainted with a confinement, he should immediately proceed to the house with a view to taking the 30s., so as to render the assistance which was necessary immediately. Everyone will agree that that was not only a necessary plan and a wise plan, but that it was the real intention in giving the benefit, because it gave to the mother and to those in charge of the home the knowledge that there was 30s. there to meet the additional expense of the particular occasion. What really happens is that there are hundreds of cases where the husband is away at work, sometimes in another town, and on some occasions actually at sea. The branch secretaries are faced with this difficulty: He is anxious to help the case and anxious to leave the money there, but he knows perfectly well that he is responsible to the society, and that the Government auditors will not accept any other receipt. The result is that we have scores of occasions where a real injustice is done, not because the man is callous or indifferent, but because he himself is liable to be surcharged with the 30s. That is how the difficulty arises. This House ought to meet that difficulty. The benefit is made the property of the woman. If the woman's receipt is necessary, no one in this House will suggest that the insurance agent or local secretary is to go into the bedroom on the first day of the confinement. That is absolutely impossible, and I need not debate it. If the woman is allowed to nominate, the very woman who is brought into the working-class home on such an occasion—I say this with all seriousness, because I know—is the kind of woman the majority of men have invariably to clear out of the house as soon as possible. I am not talking of the midwife, but of the woman who generally comes in to take charge of the home. Is that the woman to whom the 30s. is to be given? Is that how the maternity benefit is to be administered?

made an observation which was inaudible.

You will be able to follow me. I am speaking of the actual difficulties from actual knowledge. I am asking the House not to go off on the track of woman versus man, but to apply themselves to a real solution of the difficulty. What I have said answers the case so far as the Amendment is concerned. The next point is the case of the man who may be away. If the Insurance Commissioners had originally decided that the receipt of the woman or the man would be acceptable to them, there would be no difficulty. No Act of Parliament can stop the abuses which have come to light of the husband spending the 30s. No Act of Parliament is going to stop the husband doing that in future, because that is the class of man who, deprived of the 30s., will stop it out of his wages the following Saturday, because he knows his wife has received 30s. Do not let us blind ourselves to that fact. We cannot deal here with these abuses, because the woman who is troubled with a husband of that description unfortunately is more in the power of that man than any other woman, and that is the real difficulty of the situation. Therefore, viewing the circumstances purely from the standpoint of the friendly societies, the trade unions and all the other approved societies which have to administer the Act, you have laid it down, and I hope it will not be gone back upon, that it is the property of the woman. Of course the woman contributes equally with the man to this, and, of course, she ought to have the benefit, but that is not the point in question. The real point is that by this Amendment you have made it the property of the woman, and you simply now say that the receipt of man or woman shall be acceptable to the friendly societies. On the other hand, if it is abused by either the man or the woman, you can have the power to deal with it in another way. You cannot deal with these abuses in the direction indicated by legislation, and I ask the House not to go back on the question that it is the woman's benefit, and not to have an unnecessary Debate as to that aspect of the question; but if the suggestion that we make is not acceptable to the House bring forward some proposal which will meet the difficulty. But do not shirk the responsibility, because there is no Member of this House who can speak with a knowledge of the administration of the Act, and no Member can quote any approved society of any magnitude which does not support our proposal. There is no Member who can claim to speak with any authority of those administering the Act who does not agree that if you leave the position as it is now, it is impossible to carry it out, and if we recognise that fact I have no hesitation in saying that we ought to find a solution, if not in these words, in similar words, which will enable the approved societies to have some control, and to have the necessary receipt to do in the future as they have been anxious to do in the past, and pay the 30s. immediately in order to relieve the woman's anxiety.

I am sorry I am unable to agree with the hon. Member in the conclusion at which he has arrived, but I agree most fully with him that in this discussion we are all agreed that the benefit belongs to the woman. I did not understand the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) to dispute that, and indeed he proposes by his Amendment to leave in the words "maternity benefit shall in every case be the mother's benefit." The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) did not at all indicate what is the practical reason why he regards that as a desirable course. Surely he must really regard it as a desirable course, in spite of his general contempt for the power of legislation, in which I largely agree with him, because he thinks it, desirable that the benefits should be legally under the control of the woman. I think we are therefore all agreed that the maternity benefit should belong to her, and we are equally agreed that in the vast majority of cases husband and wife get on very well together, and that it does not really matter a bit, whether you call it the woman's or the man's benefit. It will be applied by the man or woman to the purpose for which it is obviously desired. I wish to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts). No one proposes to make an attack on the moral character of the married working men of this country. No such thing is dreamed of by any Member of the House. The hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) appears to think that the only grievance we have to deal with is that there is a difficulty in the way of approved societies paying over this benefit as quickly as it ought to be paid. I really do not think that is the point. That may be the point which ought to be dealt with, but it is not the point on which the Amendment was moved upstairs, nor is it the real point which has been brought by a large number of people outside. The point is really exactly that which the hon. Member says we cannot deal with at all. It is that in a certain number—I am quite ready to believe a very small proportion—of the cases, taking them all together, this benefit is misapplied. May I read what the medical officer of health for Glasgow says on the subject:—

"Abuse of the benefit money is unhappily very common. Cases are numerous in which the husband receives the entire 30s. and spends it in liquor…. It is obvious from the above statement that in many cases abuse of the money would be prevented by the direct payment of the benefit to the wife."

I quite agree that that may be a little overstated. I am not sufficiently familiar with Glasgow to know whether it is, but it is a very serious grievance if it exists in only a comparatively small number of cases. I believe everyone is anxious to remedy that grievance in spite of the hon. Member's (Mr. Thomas) rather despairing view that we cannot do anything, and I believe the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) is anxious to remedy this. I understood him to say so. But his Amendment will absolutely destroy the practical value of the first words of the Clause, because he provides that the husband's receipt is to be a sufficient discharge. That really puts the whole thing back again. The effect of the wording of this Clause is really to render the whole thing absolutely nugatory. I am sure that will not do, and I cannot help thinking that the best course is to leave the Clause as it stands. We are told there may be administrative diffi- culties. The Clause as it stands provides that the payment shall be made to the' mother. I do not know what the legal advisers of the Government say, but I should have thought that a provision that payment should be made to the mother would mean what it would in any other case, namely, that as long as a person is authorised, whether the husband or anyone else, to receive the money, payment to the authorised person was payment to the mother. If that applies, and I can see no reason why it should not, payment to the mother will be satisfied as long as the payment is made to someone who is authorised by the mother to receive it. Surely, that is a reasonable thing. It gives her a real control of the matter, and that is the way in which it should be dealt with. I adduce this as we are dealing with it for the moment from an administrative point of view. I doubt very much whether the Amendment as drafted would be a very workable Amendment from a purely administrative point of view. It provides that you must necessarily produce a receipt, either from the wife or from the husband. Take the case which the hon. Member put of the husband being away and the wife not being well enough to give a receipt. It would still be impossible to pay the money out. It seems to me much better to say that if the payment is to be made to the mother let the approved society make its own machinery by its own regulations as to how and on what evidence the payment is going to the mother, and then you get rid of all difficulties. If you put in these precise words it seems to me that you run a great danger of placing difficulties in the way of the administration of the Act. I hope very much that the House will reject the Amendment. There are administrative difficulties about the Bill as it stands without the Amendment. I cannot think they are insurmountable, indeed they have to be surmounted in the case of the unmarried mother at present, and therefore I have no doubt they can be surmounted in other cases, and after all we have had a very striking testimony in the almost unanimity of all the women who are entitled to speak on the subject that they desire that the Bill should be left as it is. It is not a question of suffragists, or anti-suffragists, or of rich or poor. They all agree that since this House in its wisdom has declined to give them political power it ought to attend very carefully to the desires expressed with so much authority.

I have an Amendment on the Paper, but it is not in order until this Amendment is accepted. Consequently I can only indicate that while I appeal to the House to vote for this Amendment I only do so hoping that they will afterwards pass my Amendment to leave out the words at the end of the Clause, which to my mind will utterly contradict the decision of the Committee upstairs. If they are left in. the decision of the Committee, and of the House if it affirms it, that it should be the mother's benefit, is really vitiated, because the man will spend it as he likes. He will be the sole judge as to what is for the benefit of the wife and child, and then really the whole object of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), to whom the principal credit is due for bringing this question forward, would be defeated. As one who supported him in Committee and entirely agrees with the views expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), I could not support the Amendment if that latter Clause were left in. I am supported in that by the document which, I think, all Members have had, which came from the leading officials of the approved societies. Although many separate sections and groups of larger and smaller dimensions have sent manifestoes or requisitions, or memorials to the House, I think this, of all the communications we have received, stands alone in that it incorporates so many different bodies. The trade unionists are here, including two Members of the House, the Oddfellows and Foresters, the Hearts of Oak, and a group of other orders have all signed this. The Prudential Society have signed it by their actuary and secretary; the Associated Officers who form the National Amalgamated have signed it by their chairman and secretary; the Liverpool Victoria, the United Order of Oddfellows, and representatives of the dividing societies have all signed it. It would, perhaps, have been more convenient if those Members of the Labour party who have spoken had made some reference to this document to which their colleagues committed themselves. I had nothing to do with drawing it up, but some Members of the Labour party had, because they were in the room. I was called in when the document was almost completed, and was asked if I would take the responsibility of supporting it in the House, and I feel it my duty to do so on behalf of these signatories. My Amendment on the Paper is to make the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) in exact accord with the decision which took place, on the invitation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in one of the Committee Rooms of this House on Friday last. These are the people who administer the Act. I was exceedingly interested in what was said by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), and I should like to make an appeal to him. After all, we must see how the principal Act leaves the question. It undoubtedly leaves maternity benefit as the mother's benefit. The societies administering the Act have during the past months administered it more sympathetically to the woman than the Act itself authorises. In some cases they have broken the Act, and paid the money to the woman against the express wish of the husband, where they have no confidence in him. The trade unions, where men have complained to them, say, "If you press this matter further we will have to consider the propriety of retaining your membership." I mention that to show that there is no desire on the part of the approved societies to do anything but to give the utmost consideration to the woman. I want to point out that, if this Amendment is carried with the words deleted which I suggest should be deleted, there would be a great gain over the position which has existed. In the first place, we shall have decided that it is really the mother's benefit—a gain which I consider is of the utmost importance. Secondly, we say that the receipt shall come from the wife, or from the husband on her behalf. We mention the persons in the natural order. The first idea is that, if possible, the mother should give the receipt, and therefore we mention that if he gives the receipt he is only to receive the money on her behalf. I think that is all the difference in the man receiving the money on his own behalf and receiving the money to hand it to her. We say specifically that where the money is paid to the husband he shall give it to the wife.

If the Clause ends there, I think we shall have taken an immense stride forward from present conditions. Then when the next amending Bill comes to be considered, if any cases have been found where the woman has not actually got control of the money to be spent at her direction, then it means that the decision of this House is being defied and vitiated. I would appeal to those who might otherwise be inclined to vote against this Amendment rather to recognise that we may pass the Amendment with the final words deleted and still make a very great advance on the present position. I would like to say quite frankly that the societies in approving of all this have, in my opinion, put themselves in accord with the Grand Committee upstairs, and I trust that this House will support the Committee. What do the great approved societies say? They say:—

"We welcome anp cordially approve of the provision providing that this benefit should be the absolute property of the mother, and we are desirous that the payment of the same should he made to her in full and as speedily as possible."

I would say to the House that the great approved societies in putting down in black and white that definite pledge show that they are anxious to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). If they will administer it in that spirit, I think we might meet them on the actual question of machinery. The Members of this House do not want, when they have the goodwill of these societies, to ask them to attempt the impossible. Nor should they be asked to determine such internal questions as who is master of the house or whether it is partnership or not. Surely all that the societies can be asked to do is to take the 30s. to the mother if she is in a condition to take it and get her receipt, and, if the state of her health does not admit of that, to give the money to the husband, make him the trustee, and say, "This is her money. You can only sign this receipt on her behalf." I submit that we cannot follow that working man from the living room up into the bedroom, and I ask the House not to request the approved societies to go further. At any rate, this is a great gain on last year, and it seems to me a sensible proposal that, whenever the money is paid into the husband's hands, he should know that it is his wife's property. Then the insurance part of the problem is satisfied. If, after all, there should prove to be some difficulties, time can only show them, and next year we might consider the carrying of the Amendment further.

I should like to reinforce nine-tenths of the speech of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Booth), and, if I disagree with him in the other tenth, I shall try to explain to the House the grounds of my disagreement. There is one thing perfectly evident, in spite of the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), that that kind of speech is not going to solve this problem. It is not a question of sentiment or of generosity. It is not even, if I may say so, a question of property, because maternity benefit is a trust fund, and ought to be administered as a trust fund. It does not belong to the husband; it does not belong to the wife, and it ought not to belong to either, because, if it does belong to the husband, then he is entitled to misapply it if it is his property, and if it is the property of the wife, she is entitled to misapply it, and nobody has any business to quarrel with her. That is not the intention of the money at all. That is not why maternity benefit is being given. This sum of 30s. is given for a certain object either to the wife or to the husband, or to both together—it does not matter for the moment to whom. This sum of money is given by the approved societies, or through the operation of the Insurance Act, for the purpose of being spent upon a certain object. That object is to bring the mother round, to make her strong and well as quickly as possible, and to give the newly born child a fair chance at the beginning of life. If the father misapplies that money under the Act as it is now administered, he is a brute, and he ought to be punished in every way possible. If the mother misapplies it, she is equally wrong, equally culpable, and ought equally to be visited with such censure as can be visited upon her.

Therefore, when we talk about property, we are talking loosely, and we are using words which really do not apply under the circumstances. Property it may be, but it is a very limited kind of property, and I prefer the expression, which I have already used, that maternity benefit is a trust fund. Under the principal Act that trust fund can only be paid to the husband. That is wrong, and everybody admits it. We approach this problem, first of all, from the point of view of administration, and the first form of our Amendment was that the receipt of the mother would be equally valid with the receipt of the father. The principal Act gives a society power to administer this money either in cash or in kind. Do not let the House forget that. An approved society, if it likes, can say that this money shall not be paid either to the husband or to the wife, but may be administered otherwise than in cash. But if it is given in cash, the husband's receipt alone is valid so far as the Insurance Act is concerned. Some criticism has been made upon my hon. Friends and myself on the assumption that we thought that any variation of payment to the husband would be an insult. As a matter of fact, the trade unions, which are approved societies themselves, have in many cases from the first been flying in the teeth of the law, so to speak, and accepting the receipt of the mothers when they decline to pay this money to the fathers. We simply looked at it from the purely administrative point of view, and took into account the actual experience of the societies. Our first idea did not go any further than to legalise the administration as well as the practice of the societies, of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) is a leading official. His society issued orders to the branches that if it was found that there was reason why the husband should not get the money, the husband was not to get it, and that it ought to be paid to the wife. That practice is enough to justify us in standing up here without fear of the accusation which is thrown against us that we are acting on some narrow ground. I think the Noble Lord was wrong when he said that the Amendment put in by the Committee upstairs has declared that maternity benefit is the property of the wife.

indicated dissent.

The whole of my case rests on that point. The Clause does not state that maternity benefit is the property of the mother. As the principal Act stands, if the benefit is paid in cash, must be given to the husband, but it may be administered otherwise. According to the Amended Bill, which we are now considering, the money has to be paid to the wife and to her only. What we want to bring in is that the money shall be paid on the receipt of the wife or of the husband. That is a very important administrative difference. The Noble Lord does not agree with receipts. He says, "Why receipts?" I will tell him. If this House would visualise the conditions under which that money, as a rule, reaches the possession of the wife—may I say parenthetically that I am only dealing with bad cases, and not with the ninety-nine good cases in a hundred? —if this House would visualise the conditions which exist in the room when this money reaches the place, assuming that it reaches immediately or very soon after the birth, it will see that a monstrous injustice is far more likely to be done than otherwise unless the society has got some definite proof that the demand for payment has come directly from the mother, and that the payment when made is going to go directly to the mother. The Noble Lord knows what the terrible intervention of the third person means under such circumstances—the terrible intervention of neigh-bours, and so on. If this is a trust fund we must be particularly careful in dealing with bad cases, even putting impediments in the way if necessary, in order to make sure that the money is going to go into the hands of the person who is going to administer it in trust for the mother and the child, or into the hands of the mother, who will spend it on her own behalf. The Married Woman's Property Act has nothing whatever to do with this case. No talk about a married woman's property or the separate property of married women has the least bearing upon the problem which this House has got to face. It is this, How are the obligations which are attached to every 1s. of this 30s. going to be carried out by the person who spends the money? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, that given a bad husband and a blackguardly husband who is capable of some of the things of which we have been hearing, neither this House nor any other House is going to settle that. He is going to be a disgrace and he has got to be wiped out by some other means, but this House must honestly admit to itself that there is also the bad wife of the good husband. We cannot deny it. It is very sad, but there it is, and as business men trying to face a real problem we must face it honestly to ourselves. If this money is paid over to the bad mother, then you get on her side a duplication of every abuse that has been published as an abuse which has attended the expenditure of this money when it found its way first of all into the hands of the husband.

We propose to give the societies discriminating power, and I believe that in the long run we are going to do more of that than we have done. I know the argument used against us, and admit its strength to the full, that if the societies begin to discriminate they discriminate against a man and brand a man. My reply is that if a society discriminates against a man in 9,999 out of every 10,000 cases he ought to be discriminated against, and I, for one, would be only too glad if he was discriminated against and branded as the sort of person that undoubtedly he would be in those circumstances. We ought to be courageous as well as sympathetic in this matter, and we believe that the society and its responsible officers should have some discriminating powers. That is in the Act now and, therefore, it does not require to be put into this Amendment. Therefore we say we must insist upon the wife's receipt, though in certain circumstances I quite see that it is going to be rather difficult to get it, but it is the one safeguard which we have got in a large number of bad cases that it will not be intercepted on the way to the mother. If anyone can give us a better suggestion we shall be delighted to accept it. The final point is this: I do not know whether I am specially old-fashioned, but I still believe that the man and the wife should co-operate together in the expenditure of the common fund. It is a very miserable family that cannot have a common fund. So what would happen if these last words of ours were left out? The man can go to the society and state, "I will draw the money for my wife," and he gets it. He can say to the society, "I would advise you not to pay it to my wife because she cannot administer it," but he cannot say to the society, "Please give it to me and I will administer it for her." He, then, can only say to the society, "You have got to administer it yourself on her behalf." Surely that is very improper! That is the unfortunate position which will hit the good families and the people living in good relationships. But I hope that the House will vote for the Amendment, and then it can consider the matter further. I am perfectly willing to take the decision of the House upon the Amendment which my hon. Friend has got down to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich, but the House must do something to supplement the Clause which is now in being. It must do something to make machinery for carrying out the intentions of the Clause. When that is done, as I hope the House will do, by voting for my hon. Friend's Amendment, then the House can say whether it is going to leave in the final words or not.

I hope very much that the House will not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Mem- ber for Norwich. The hon. Member made, I suppose, the best case that could be made for an extremely weak cause, and I do not feel that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract really improves what I look upon as an entire going back upon the principle that we decided upon upstairs. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury is not going to make this a party question, and is not going to put on the Government Whips when it comes to a Division. Upstairs in Committee he made it. quite plain that it was not going to be treated as a party question, and if the Government Whips are put on down here that would be going back on a distinct pledge that he gave us upstairs in Committee. The House has not very often an opportunity of deciding upon a non-party issue and I feel that in a case of this kind no Cabinet pressure whatsoever should be brought to bear upon the decision of the House. It is essentially a question for the decision of the House, and it ought not to be made a question of political expediency. I feel strongly that if women had votes to-day there would be absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to which way the decision upon this question would go. If women had votes I believe that the 30s. would he absolutely safe in their pockets in every single case. I would like to appeal especially to the anti-suffragists in this House.

As long as men deny the vote to women—and it may be that in doing so they are quite right—they ought to look upon themselves, especially as the trustees in this House of women's interests, and they ought to go out of their way to behave generously whenever a question of this sort comes up. I believe that if we do neglect these rights of the women we shall be doing an immense amount to add to the very long list of supporters of women suffrage all over the country. The hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Leicester referred to certain administrative difficulties that might occur in reading the Clause in the Amending Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester says that we have not declared it is the women's property. That may be perfectly true, but we have declared that it is the woman's benefit, and it is the woman's legal benefit. I do not think that there is the slightest controversy in any part of the House in regard to that. Therefore, it is our duty to see that the whole of the legal benefit is expended on her behalf for the benefit of herself and the child.

I do not see that there are going to be any administrative difficulties at all. Post office orders can be perfectly easily sent through the post, or the approved societies can find out some cheap means of seeing that this benefit gets into the hands of the mother. At present everybody knows that sick pay is sent through the post through the instrumentality of post office orders. More than that, in the case of unmarried women who are insured, post office orders are sent through the post to those unmarried women in respect of maternity benefit, and no administrative difficulty has been found so far as I am aware in getting the maternity benefit into the hands of insured unmarried women. If it can be done in their case I do not see that there need be any administrative difficulties in getting the maternity benefit into the hands of insured married women. The midwife or the doctor can perfectly easily give a certificate of the birth even in the case of the insured married women. The difficulty has already been got over. What happens in the case of a man at sea who is insured and married? On the birth of a child the maternity benefit is now sent to the wife of an insured man and no administrative difficulties have been discovered in this case. I would like to point out that you are really differentiating, I think very unfairly, as between the married and the unmarried insured woman. Under the principal Act, as everybody knows, if a woman is insured and married to an insured man the insured woman does not get any maternity benefit at all. The maternity benefit is paid to the husband who is insured. But if a woman is unmarried and insured she gets her own maternity benefit to deal with as she likes. That is under the present system an unmarried insured woman would be able to deal with her maternity benefit and you deny this to the insured married woman. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke that it is perfectly fallacious to suppose that it is merely the husband who contributes towards the maternity benefit. The woman's work at home continually enables the man to earn his wages outside, and in hundreds of cases it is the woman's privation, much more than the husband's, or the children's privation, that results from the deduction of the contribution, very often from a very low wage.

I am aware that a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon the Government by trade unions and ap- proved societies, but I do not think that my Noble Friend mentioned this, that a unanimous resolution has been passed, I think yesterday, at the English speaking Conference on Infant Mortality, expressing the hope that the Clause in the Amending Bill would be passed in its unaltered form. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he gets up to reply will make it quite clear that this is not a party question. I do not know from the smile on his face whether he is or is not going to make it a party question. I do not want to use language which is too strong, but if, after his pledge upstairs that he would leave it to the sound common sense of the Committee and not make it a party question, he now on the floor of this House is going to do so and put on the Government Whips, I say it will be a scandalous breach of the pledge which he gave. I only hope that he is not going to do it.

I propose to reply to the arguments which have been addressed to the House now, as we have further and important work to do this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman seemed to attack me with some violence, and suggested that I had made a certain pledge. I made no pledge upstairs in connection with what the action of the Government might be on Report. To relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind, however, I may state that I have no intention of exercising any kind of pressure in regard to this subject, and, indeed, the only thing I can do will be to adopt the same attitude that I adopted upstairs. The hon. Member may be interested to know what actually did happen upstairs. All four Members who were leading the four parties in the Committee voted one way—they all voted in the minority, with a result, I am sure, very much to the satisfaction of the Noble Lord.