This Resolution is preliminary to a Bill which is to be introduced for the purpose of increasing the salaries of resident magistrates in Ireland, and making a slight change in regard to qualification. There are 66 resident magistrates at the present time, and they are divided into three classes, 1, 2 and 3. There are 20 resident magistrates in Class 1, 32 in Class 2, and 14 in Class 3. The salaries are graduated according to the class. The maximum of Class 1 is £675, Class 2, £550; Class 3, £425. It is proposed in the Bill to amalgamate the three classes, and to fix the minimum salary on appointment at £500, the present minimum being £425, and the maximum at £700, the present maximum being £675. Instead of keeping separate classes there will be one class with an annual increment of £20 a year, ranging between £500 on appointment to £700 as the maximum. The increases are not very large. The Act under which the salaries were fixed was passed so long ago as 1874, and there has not been any increase in the salaries since. The duties of the resident magistrate are extremely onerous and they are exposed at times to very great risk.

Do these salaries include war bonus?

No.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the whole salary will be with bonus?

The war bonus will be about 25 per cent.

What about allowances?

Allowances include railway fares when the magistrates are attending sessions. They are also allowed when they are absolutely detained on business a subsistence allowance, but they must be more than 20 miles from their house. As the resident magistrate must always reside in his district, that limits the charge in that respect. It is not proposed to increase the allowances. They will remain the same as before. The only difference is the increase in salaries. The war bonus will, of course, be governed by the ordinary rules relating to the bonus.

Is the war bonus permanent?

No. It is paid as a temporary emergency, and it is not proposed to make it permanent in this Bill.

I should have thought that the Bill which will rest on this Financial Resolution is the kind of measure which ought not to have been taken at this time. We are passing through the House of Commons an Irish measure which proposes to entrust the Irish people with the management of their own affairs, and it does seem rather a premature step on the part of the Government to come down on a Friday morning and ask us to agree to overhaul a system which is obviously pertinent to the people of Ireland, and to the people of Ireland alone. I am surprised that the Government, in view of the fact that they are making, presumably, a perfectly honest and sincere attempt to hand over the government of Ireland to the people of Ireland, should want the British House of Commons to interfere in a perfectly personal matter affecting the appointment and salaries of resident magistrates. I do not think that any hon. Member who takes part in this discussion will differ from the view which I have expressed that this is a matter solely for the Irish Parliament. The memorandum which has been issued in connection with this Resolution shows that this Bill seeks to give power to the Lord Lieutenant. We have heard from time to time of what is known as Castle Government, and many of us agree that many of the ills from which Ireland is suffering—

That may be in the Bill; I do not know, because I have not seen it, but it is not in this Financial Resolution. This Resolution is required to authorise the Committee on the Bill to deal with the salaries of resident magistrates. The points of the Bill must be dealt with when the Bill is introduced.

On the Financial Resolution, are we not entitled to discuss the policy that arises out of the appointment of those resident magistrates?

No.

If that be so, may I remind the Committee of the history of the appointment of resident magistrates by the Lord Lieutenant, and seek to show from one or two examples that the appointment of resident magistrates is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the question?

No. This is purely a question of money, and nothing else. It simply is to empower the House and the Committee of the House to deal with the Bill which I suppose is going to be introduced. These matters may or may not be relevant when the Bill comes along. I cannot say until I see the Bill.

Can we not discuss the appointment and qualification of resident magistrates?

No—only the question whether the Committee will sanction this procedure, to enable the Bill to propose an increase of salary. We have been informed that this is all that is in the Bill. It is solely the money aspect that concerns us here to-day.

In that case I will confine my remarks to the proposal to increase those salaries by the amount of £8,000. I suppose the argument for the increase is the necessity of meeting the present cost of living in Ireland. What the Bill proposes is to scrap an old arrangement of three separate classes of magistrates the lowest of which is receiving at least £420 a year, which is £20 more than members of this House receive, though they also are affected by the high cost of living, while the first-class goes to £675, and these magistrates are enjoying on those salaries the equivalent war bonuses. That is a considerable sum. Taking it at 25 per cent. it would give on the £625 an increase of at least £160. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any argument to justify the scrapping of the series of classes of magistrates. In Scotland you have, from the Lord Advocate downwards, certain appointments which are paid certain sums. Men enjoying the lesser posts and emoluments are men who are at the beginning of their legal career. And we want some justification for taking those resident magistrates from the lower classes and putting them on a minimum basis of £500, plus war bonus, which at 25 per cent. would bring the salary up to £625, which is the present maximum of first-class magistrates. Some reason should be given for extravagance of this kind. It is expenditure of British money. If I were allowed, I could advance reasons why the whole system should be done away with as being a bad system; but as I am not allowed to go into that, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give some justification for raising those forty-six men up from the lower classes. I suppose that every one of these forty-six men will at once go on to the minimum of £500 with war bonus, and presumably the men in the other classes who have more than £500 will start at the figure which they have now, plus war bonus. I hope that we shall have some further explanation in view of the fact that this money is going to be spent on a policy which ought to be in the hands of the Irish people themselves, and not dealt with by the British House of Commons.

This is an example of a method of procedure which ought to be strongly reprobated. We are dealing with a Money Resolution which concerns a Bill not yet got before us. It makes it extremely difficult to curtail the extravagance of the Front Bench opposite if they deprive us of a Bill, and the arguments for that Bill which we should naturally hear if it were introduced, before dealing with the Financial Resolution. I do not remember any previous occasion when we have had Financial Resolutions to debate before the Bill has been before the House.

The Bill, according to our Rules, cannot be introduced and printed until the Resolution has been passed.

It can get the First Reading, and be printed.

No; when this Resolution has been accepted by the Committee and reported by the House, we shall then be told who will bring in the Bill.

Of course the Financial Resolution will come before the House again in that case. It is difficult to deal with a Resolution like this without knowledge of what the Government policy is concerning the reconstruction of the judiciary in Ireland. My principal objection to the Bill is, that by voting this money you are creating a vested interest just at a time when the whole question of Irish Government is in the melting pot, so that we in this country may be saddled for all time with the payment of these salaries.

No.

Yes, and if they get Home Rule, or an independent republic in Ireland, we shall be committed to these salaries to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer, and shall have around our necks this perpetual burden. It is this creation of vested interests which has to be watched very carefully. In India the same sort of thing has been going on, and with a great change in the political government coming close, you find all the permanent officials doing everything they can to entrench themselves, so that if the change of government results in their services being dispensed with they may be sure for all time of very large salaries for doing nothing. Now, when a Home Rule Bill is going through, when there are possibilities opened up that the Prime Minister, in conversation with the right hon. Gentleman for Derby (Mr. Thomas), may effect some real settlement of the Irish question, we should be very chary of saddling these negotiations or these proposals with definite vested interests which will have to be squared in coming to any sort of a settlement. I wish that the Resolution might be postponed and that this additional burden, which appears to be only £8,000 a year but involves us in far larger annual sums in future, could be postponed also, at any rate until the question of Home Rule has been settled. There is this further argument. The additional cost of living has hit the whole of the Civil Service throughout the country, and not merely in Ireland. It hits the judges and stipendiary magistrates here just as hard as it hits the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. If you are dealing with the increased cost of living and with the readjustment of the War Bonus into a definite rise in salary all round, that should be part of a general scheme of readjustment and not refer merely to the resident magistrates in Ireland. I am an old resident magistrate myself and I have a great deal of sympathy with them. There are very few people connected with the courts in Ireland who are worse paid than these magistrates, and the increased cost of living hits them just as it hits others.

The whole of the civil service should be dealt with simultaneously and not one class selected. The rise in the cost of living which has been universal, is less marked in the country districts of Ireland than, probably, in any other quarter of the globe. It is in the towns in a country such as this, and still more in countries where the coinage has depreciated, that you get this enormous increase in the cost of living. You are beginning with the wrong end of the stick by dealing with people in country districts in Ireland who are already in receipt of salaries with which, in conjunction with the Bonus, they can carry on. You should deal with the struggling class of permanent officials throughout Great Britain as well as Ireland. They have an even stronger case and an even more urgent need. Because I do not want to tie the hands of any future Irish Government, and do not want, if they refuse to have their hands tied, to saddle this country with permanent compensation for these officials, and because I think the whole question of raising the pay of the Civil Service should not be dealt with piecemeal but universally, I urge this Committee to think twice before it accepts this Resolution. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If you accept this, every other class of Civil servant will come along, and you will gradually get more and more money screwed out of the taxpayer for the benefit of the Civil servant. I think we shall have to pay much bigger salaries to Civil servants, but the question should be considered generally, and not in relation to one specific class.

I rise to ask the Government to withdraw this Resolution on a ground entirely different from that backed by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Hogge). He seemed to be rather disturbed, and to take exception to £625 as being exorbitant pay. I should like to know whether these gentlemen are allowed to carry on any private practice by which they can supplement their income. If not, I say that £625 for a man in that position is entirely inadequate. I hope hon. Members will assist in pressing upon the Government the necessity of giving these gentlemen adequate remuneration, in view of very arduous duties performed in a very honest manner, and in view of the risks they run. Six hundred and twenty-five pounds is really only about £300 a year pre-war value. While I do not approve of assisting the Government which is carrying on in Ireland, I ask them to reconsider the whole question of the payment of these men. Resident magistrates have positions to keep up. They must live in a sphere of life that will enable them to command the respect of the people with whom they have to deal. They have not to be dependent in any way upon the people over whom they exercise jurisdiction. It is necessary, therefore, that they should have adequate remuneration, and I hope hon. Members will say something in support of that view.

I rise to endorse what has been said by the last speaker. He and I differ in politics, but I am glad to see that he looks at this matter from a reasonable point of view. I am rather surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood), who has found safety in the Labour party, refuses to allow these magistrates to have a living wage. I should have thought that the first duty of one who is an enthusiast in the Labour party would have been to see that any man employed by the Government was paid adequately. There is no doubt whatever that under present conditions these resident magistrates are not being paid a living wage. Speaking for myself and for my colleagues, I say that we are in favour of paying them a decent and an adequate salary. The hon. Member who leads the Opposition (Mr. Hogge)—the real Leader of the Opposition—has complained about scrapping classes. As a matter of fact, all these magistrates are doing the same class of work. Is there any reason why they should not get the same amount of salary?

The hon. Member should explain why there are these three classes of magistrates, and why it is proposed to scrap them. We want to know. We might let you have this money if we knew.

The arrangement was originally made by an ulta-Tory Radical Administration. After all, the Radical is a Tory at heart. I see no reason why a man sitting in County Kerry should not have the same salary as a man sitting in County Antrim. As a matter of fact, a Kerry man has to do nine or ten times the amount of work. The friends of my hon. Friends opposite reside in Kerry, and they give more employment for the magistrates in Kerry. I suggest that men who do equal work should get equal pay. A reasonable proposition of that kind should appeal to the Labour Members opposite. The question really resolves itself into this, are these magistrates being paid an adequate salary for the work they do? I say they are not, and I hope therefore that the Committee will say that these men should be paid a living wage.

I am not at all out of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, but there are a great many people who are feeling the increased cost of living. That applies, though probably not quite so much, to Ireland as well as to this country. I had the opportunity yesterday of speaking in the Lobby to four or five men from Ireland and on this question of the present cost of living they said that Ireland was not at all a bad place to live in. Hon. Members opposite are interesting themselves in one class of officials but there is another class in Ireland who are feeling the increased cost of living very much. I refer to the teachers.

Were it not for obstruction from the Benches opposite, the teachers would have better salaries.

I do not see that this question has anything to do with the present Bill, and I rule the reference and the interruption out of order.

When a measure is brought in to deal with one class owing to increased cost of living, one might naturally expect that measures would also be brought in to deal with another large class of people in Ireland in whom members in all parts of the House are particularly interested. At question time yesterday strong pressure was put on the Government by the hon. Member for Ormeau (Mr. Moles) to deal with this matter to which I have referred and the answer was that there was not time, as there were a great many other measures to be dealt with. If the Government can find time to deal with the position of resident magistrates and sheriffs, why can they not find time to deal with the position of the teachers? I was a little surprised that the hon. Member who spoke last did not make that point.

I would have made the point only I thought that the Chairman would have called me to order had I attempted to do so.

As to the suggestion that there has never been any opposition from this side I think I can say that if a measure were brought in dealing purely with the question of the salaries of teachers no opposition would have been raised in any quarter of the House, but it had other matters attached to it. I assume that the Bill founded on this Resolution will be confined to the proposals contained in it and that there will not be any question of adding to the number of the magistrates. I think it would be wrong to base any opposition to this Bill on the question of the duties these officers are performing. There they are and those duties have been laid upon them and I think they discharge them very fearlessly and under very great difficulties. I think some very pertinent remarks were made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood). We are passing a Bill which proposes to give hon. Members opposite control of their own affairs in the North of Ireland and I assume that that power will include control of their officials and the salaries to be paid. There is the possibility that Northern Ireland might decide to dispense with this particular class of magistrate. In that event what would be the effect of this proposal upon the obligations of the British taxpayer. We propose to advance these salaries and I do not suggest that that advance is unreasonable, but will it become the basis of pension allowances, or if a change were made say in the Northern Parliament, would it mean an increased charge on the taxpayers of this country? I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain the reason for abolishing the different classes of magistrates. There must have been some reason for it. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Woodvale that these resident magistrates were the result of a measure passed by an ultra-Tory-Radical Government. The Bill was passed in 1874, and I am under the impression that Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister and that was not an ultra-Tory-Radical Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beaconsfield."] I am told I am wrong as to who was Prime Minister, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that there certainly was not an ultra--Tory-Radical Government. The sum of £8,000, is mentioned as being the additonal cost to the Exchequer. May I ask whether this £8,000 is the ultimate cost to the Exchequer or the cost which will arise on the first Order made after the passing of this Bill, and therefore liable to be increased as time goes on?

My memory does not go back to 1874, and I do not propose to go into the history of the appointment of resident magistrates in Ireland. I have no hostility to them. I think they functioned pretty well up to about a year ago, and the reason why they ceased to function was owing to the bad faith of the Government to Ireland. I propose to vote against this increase of salaries. My first objection to it is that I do not like the idea of giving this power to the Lord Lieutenant. The whole power over the judiciary, paid and unpaid, should be vested in the Parliament or Parliaments to be set up in Ireland, and this sort of legislation, which reserves certain things, and the policy of the Government in pretending they cannot trust the Irish Parliaments, is only in line with their general insult to that long-suffering race. I cannot understand why my hon. Friends representing North-East Ulster support it, because I should have thought they would take it as an affront. They are going to set up a Parliament in Northern Ireland, and I should have thought they would be jealous to see that every possible power was given to that Parliament. I hope, therefore, I shall have the support of those hon. Members. I have another very strong objection to the Resolution, but may I first pour a little praise on the Government? I welcome their apparent intention to give equal pay for equal work, and I hope the next time this principle is sought to be applied in other legislation we shall have the Government's support. The greatest objection my Friends and I have to this expenditure of money is that the resident magistrates over a great portion of Ireland are not doing their work. The law in Ireland is not being administered by His Majesty's Government.

That has already been ruled out of order when the hon. and gallant Member was not here.

I do not wish to transgress a ruling which I did not hear, but am I in order in raising the point that there is an extreme probability that martial law is to be applied in Ireland?

This Resolution authorises the bringing in of a Bill to raise the salaries of the resident magistrates in Ireland.

My contention is that the resident magistrates are not functioning, and therefore I object to voting money for duties which are not being carried out.

We are not voting any money at all by this Resolution.

But we are authorising money.

No, we are authorising a Bill to be brought in, and the Bill may authorise expenditure. That is the occasion when the hon. and gallant Member should object to it.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Resolution which you put was not "That it is expedient to authorise further payments—?" Does not that permit us to discuss what the payments are for?

Certainly—to discuss whether a Bill is to be allowed to be brought in to raise the salaries of magistrates.

If I object strongly to the Bill which has been outlined by the Government, may I not try to persuade the Committee to prevent that Bill even being introduced? I object very much to the proposed Bill, and I am trying to take the constitutional means of preventing even its introduction, or the expense of its printing, because, in conjunction with a great many other Bills dealing with Ireland, which the Government have introduced, it is literally, in my opinion, not worth the paper it is printed on. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that the only real justice that is being meted out in Ireland is in those parts where the irregular Courts are functioning. The party of law and order, or the so-called Unionists—

That does not arise. The hon. and gallant Member cannot proceed unless he find something more relevant.

I will wind up my remarks in one sentence, by saying that I consider this money that we are asked to vote a waste of money.

I presume these resident magistrates are Civil servants, and if so I am rather surprised that their income is to be so small. I am very much astonished to find that the Government have been so niggardly, not only in connection with salaries, but in the matter of the War Bonus of these resident magistrates. In the Civil Service of this country, the War Bonus has been not less than 30 per cent., and why these men should only get 25 per cent. I am at a loss to understand. A magistrate, who, I presume, has got a good education, receives only £625, less income tax, whereas in my own district there are ordinary working-men with no responsibility as well off. I think the Government should treat these men more generously, and that the War Bonus should be at least equal to that of the Civil Service.

1.0 P.M.

I had not the advantage of hearing the opening of this Debate, but I am informed that the Minister in charge of this Resolution did not explain to the Committee what the final financial obligations were likely to be under this Bill when introduced; and, reading the Resolution together with the White Paper, there are one or two obvious questions, which, I think ought to be cleared up before a decision is arrived at in this matter. As pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend, the estimated additional cost to the Exchequer in the first year only will amount to £8,000, but it is stated in the White Paper that it is proposed to substitute by order made from time to time a scale rising by annual increments. I think the Committee ought to know what those annual increments will finally amount to. There is a further point. According to the White Paper, £8,000 is in respect of salaries, but the Resolution provides for salaries and allowances. I do not know whether the word "salaries" alone in the White Paper is a deviation from the meticulous care, which usually characterises a Government department in preparing these papers, or whether it implies that there is something additional, in the way of allowances, to the sum mentioned in the White Paper. This information really goes to the root of the whole matter so far as the financial aspect of the question is concerned.

This, of course, is a Resolution on which a Money Bill is to be founded. So that the whole gravamen of the proposal is a financial one, and, therefore, it is quite natural that we should examine it with care, because the main element is expense. I shall not apologise, therefore, if I go into some detail from the financial point of view. We are asked to vote to day under the first Order £8,000, under the second Order some hundreds of pounds, under the third some thousands, and under the fourth £10,000,000. That is the program for one day of the Government, which is striving in every way to seize—I think it was the expression of the Chancellor of Exchequer—every opportunity or reducing the floating debt. I have not the least intention of challenging the right of these magistrates to have reasonable salaries. Without going back on anything I have said about the Irish question, I really think the resident magistrates are very brave men. But that does not mean that I approve in the least of the infamous system under which they are working. I admire their courage, and no one desires to reduce their pay or to see that they do not get a proper remuneration. What we do say is that, before we are asked, in the words of the Resolution, "to authorise further payments," we want to know first of all whether we approve of the expenditure, and, secondly, whether further payments are required. As regards further payments, there is a certain amount of money at present available with which to pay resident magistrates. A most significant sidelight on Irish Administration is the fact that these judges—for they are judges—are paid out of Supply. All other judges are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, which means, of course, they are out of reach of the power of the Executive; but not so resident magistrates, who are paid out of Supply, so that the Castle can regulate their procedure so far as they consider proper so to do. Therefore, there is a certain amount of money voted hitherto in Supply for the payment of these resident magistrates. What was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is perfectly true, that in a large part of Ireland, resident magistrates' Courts and many other Courts are being administered in another way, so that out of the pool from which resident magistrates are paid, a certain amount must surely be available for the areas where other Courts are operating in their rough-and-ready way to preserve law and order. Let us suppose, for example, that step by step the area of another domination is extended, are we to go on indefinitely extending the amount of financial provision for the judiciary, though in the greater part of the island it ceases to have any function? The right hon. Gentleman addresses the House with a charm of manner and great courtesy, but it does not provide the amount of information desired, and we ought to know how far he is going to ask the House for more money without explaining his attitude towards the fact that, as regards the judiciary, a large part of the country is derelict, and cannot cost anything. The Government are constantly introducing Bills to reduce the number of resident magistrates. Has that no financial bearing? There was a Bill for extending the Defence of the Realm Regulations in Ireland. Under those Regulations certain Courts are held by resident magistrates, but, in order to strengthen the grip of the Castle over the judiciary, and in order to remove any element of the semblance of a Court or jury there might be, the number of resident magistrates to constitute a Court was reduced.

indicated dissent.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks up the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, he will find it is so.

indicated dissent.

I remember quite well we protested against the number of resident magistrates. If these men are not to be employed, why should we increase the outlay? The fact of the matter is that the functions of this body are dying of atrophy, because it has not the public approval to keep it alive. Despite that, the Government ask us to hand out more money. It is not our intention by any means, although it may be thought by some to be so, to deprive the resident magistrates of a proper salary, but we say the money available is sufficient if properly distributed.

There is one small point to which I wish, in passing, to draw the attention of the Attorney-General. Under the Act of 1874, which an hon. Member in the course of the Debate has described as having been passed by an ultra-Radical statesman—Section (5), in addition to the allowance paid for travelling—that is Sub-section (2)—there is a further allowance for actual absences from home, and so on. That is the Section to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. But what about the first part of the Section? In addition to the salaries provided by this Act—that is the salary to which he referred as being set out in the Schedules—to be paid to every magistrate heretofore or hereafter appointed under the authority of the Act of 1836, there shall be an allowance for travelling of £100 per annum…" I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was not a little inaccurate in setting out the emoluments of these resident magistrates by omitting with the £100 travelling allowance the additional allowance which they may receive from time to time in respect to actual absences from home? I conceive this to be the right time for a protest on this matter to be made, and against the method by which the magistrates are controlled, because it is, I think, by the design of the Government that they have been put outside the refuge or sanctuary in which the judiciary of this country resides, and put within the control of the executive.

We cannot go into that aspect of the case. We are dealing at present, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with the question of salaries for the resident magistrates.

I will not pursue that further, except to refer to the White Paper, and to the abolition of the three classes. Why were there ever three classes? In the first place, why does the Government seek under the resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it to retain control of the salaries of these magistrates? The reason, I believe, is—and I say these words with a full sense of responsibility—because the executive desire to retain a degree of control over the resident magistrates which is absolutely improper if they are to preserve their judicial functions and character. Anybody who knows anything about administration in Ireland knows that is so.

It is not.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why? Who is to decide whether a resident magistrate has to have a rise or not? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me?

What we are dealing with at present is whether or not an annual increment shall be granted.

I remember the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I understand that an order may be made from time to time varying the scales of salaries, so that there is a discretion left to the executive. It is to that that I object. The fact of the matter is that the Castle may by order alter the scale of increments paid to resident magistrates. I think that is highly improper. A magistrate in the exercise of his judicial functions, and in coming to a decision, ought to feel that his emoluments are not affected by that decision. So far as I can judge it is possible to make an order from time to time varying the scale of increments to these magistrates. It is useless for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon) to demur by nodding his head. The effect of the Bill will be to abolish the statutory salary applicable to these men. A man under the Act of 1874 knew what he was going to receive. There is now to be substituted an order which from time to time may alter the scale of salaries received and the annual increment, so that if a magistrate is a good magistrate, and satisfies the requirements and ideas of the Castle, it is within their power to see that everything is satisfactory so far as he is concerned. I think that is very improper. I have always objected to what Mr. Gladstone—and here I would remind certain members of the Liberal and Labour Parties who are afraid to speak their mind on Irish administration—called these "Re-Movable" magistrates. That was Mr. Gladstone's expression.

Where do we stand when we have passed the resolution and when the Bill has become law? Will the Bill authorise the executive to pay into Supply services year by year these new salaries of the magistrates amounting to a total annually of apparently £8,000? I think we ought to know that because it is a very important point. I cannot deal in detail with the Government's Irish proposals, even as affecting the judiciary, but I may point this out, that the higher ranks of the judges are specifically made a reserve service, but the magistrates are not.

They are.

Clause 46 of the Government of Ireland Bill says that During his continuance in office his salary shall not be diminished or his rate of pension altered without his consent. So that let the House realise that if we pass this resolution and if the Bill based upon it becomes law, these will finally be a charge upon the Supply services of this country. I suppose it means that. That is rather a different matter from that of the mild statement made by the Attorney General. We should like to know more definitely what the final charge is, and how far the disappearance of the functions of the courts—I do not mean in an offensive sense, but without duties—have rendered the magistrates without work; and therefore how far it is possible to contract the numbers in view of the diminished work, and in view of the requirements the Government themselves have made? What exactly is the position of these magistrates both as reserved services and at the time of Irish union? Here is a point to which I would direct the attention of the Attorney General; it is true that this is a reserved service until such time as the union takes place, and that after the time of union the service becomes transferred. When the service is transferred will there come a charge upon the consolidated fund of this country?

That matter does not arise on this Money Resolution, but it can be dealt with effectively by an Amendment to the Bill.

The ultimate charge is a point of substance, but I have not the least desire to go beyond what is proper under the Money Resolution. It is a question which I submit is worthy of reply, but I will not say more than that about it. I venture to think that I have put a few questions which deserve a reply, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman with his usual courtesy will deal with the points which I have raised, I am sure that he will satisfy the legitimate desire of the Committee for information.

My hon. and gallant Friend, I fear, must be suffering for the moment from loss of memory. He referred to an occasion when we did propose a Bill with one resident magistrate in it, but I would remind him that I accepted an Amendment from himself to put in two magistrates.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. It is a very ungrateful thing that I should have forgotten that fact, but at the moment my mind was concentrated on the original beneficent proposal of the Government. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Treasury have agreed to supplement the salaries of these magistrates to this extent, and the Bill will provide for the concurrence of the Treasury before any further increase can be given. The House may rest assured that extravagance will not be the main point of the Treasury, especially in a question of this sort. One of these resident magistrates has lost his life, and a salary of £500, rising by annual increments to £700, is not an unreasonable sum.

It is not a fixed sum.

It will be always open to the Treasury, concurring with the Lord Lieutenant, to give a slight increase, but it will have to appear on the Votes of this House. The sum already sanctioned by the Treasury is not unreasonable, and, whatever sum be granted, it will have to be voted by the House.

The intention is to substitute by order made from time to time it does not say by whom—a scale or scales of salaries rising by annual increase. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the minimum was £500 and the maximum £700, and this White Paper says that someone by order can alter that maximum and also the increment. Can that be done without coming back to this House, and who are the people who are to give this order?

That is a proper point to raise on the Bill or to make the subject of an Amendment to the Bill, but it is not pertinent here on this Money Resolution.

I have listened very carefully practically to the whole of this Debate, and I do not rise to oppose the Resolution, but I should like to ask whether it is the intention that the Treasury shall be represented this afternoon. Although it is Friday, it is practically a Supply Day, because we have no less than four Money Resolutions down on the Paper. I agree that this is a very small sum, although it is an indefinite sum, and although we do not in the least know what it is going to be in the future, but when we come to the fourth Resolution a sum of £10,000,000 is involved. I must say that it is treating the House with a want of respect that there should not be a single representative of the Treasury on that Bench. I should like to point out that these Resolutions are not on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but in the name of the representative of the Treasury. They are supposed to be moved by the Treasury, and, after all, it is the business of the Treasury to look after the interests of the taxpayer. It is not respectful to the House that we should have a long series of Money Resolutions and that the Treasury should not be represented. You cannot expect the public outside to go in for economy if day after day they see money spent in this House with the Government evidently taking absolutely no interest in the proceedings.

I would like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that we on these benches have no quarrel whatever with him. He has made an admirable and clear statement of the case for this Bill, but I would like to emphasise what my hon. Friend (Mr. Locker-Lampson) has said. Here we are voting money and we have merely the spending Departments represented. without the Treasury dogs to look after the expenditure. We have been told over and over again that if only we would put our finger on a single spot where money could be saved the Chancellor of the Exchequer would save it. Here we are voting millions of money on a Friday afternoon without any check from the Treasury. Why are we asked to make this additional contribution to the salaries of this particular class of civil servants instead of dealing with all the civil servants in Ireland or elsewhere? Why is this particular branch of the Civil Service being dealt with at the present time? Is it because he is in danger? I agree that he is in danger and that he is showing great courage in danger, but let us have it stated if that be so. I would point out that there have been many people in danger during the last five years. They have worked for a smaller salary than the resident magistrates in Ireland, and they have done it willingly, because they knew that it was for the honour of this country. We want some explanation as to why this particular branch of the civil service should have a special enactment to raise their salaries while other branches of the Civil Service have not. We ought to have an explanation as to whether by passing this Money Resolution we are creating a new vested interest or merely increasing a vested interest that already exists. I notice that in the original Act of 1874 the appointment was made by the Lord Lieutenant or chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, whereas in this Resolution it is the Lord Lieutenant, alone. I am a little nervous lest we are creating a vested interest, which, in case the Lord Lieutenant vanishes, will require compensation as against a vested interest which at present is dependent upon the goodwill not only of the Lord Lieutenant but also of the Governor or Governors of Ireland. What I am really anxious about is that we should not, by the passage of this Resolution, create a fresh vested interest, which will have to be compounded on the passing of the Home Rule Act or any other Act, and which would involve this country in a large capital expenditure in addition to this more or less reasonable annual expenditure. The sum of £8,000 a year is not much, but if a capital of £45,000 at 25 years' purchase is going to be involved, then that is a considerable sum to add to the liabilities of this country. I want an assurance that we are not creating a vested interest which may amount to £800,000 capitalised, and which would have to be paid in compensation to those resident magistrates if they lost their jobs under a Home Rule Bill, or through secession.

I have already answered that point, which can be dealt with only by an Amendment to the Bill. There is nothing in the Resolution which commits us on that matter.

The reason the Bill is necessary is that it would be possible to increase the salaries of other civil servants without a Bill, but under the Act of 1874 the salaries of resident magistrates are fixed by Statute; therefore a Bill is necessary.

I understand that it would be quite possible to introduce in Supply a Supplementary Vote for the

salaries of resident magistrates, but by passing a Resolution are we in some way committing ourselves in a sense more than we do simply by a Vote in Supply, which, of course, becomes an Act in the Appropriation Act. I should like to know where there is anything in that point, and where by this Resolution there is any further commitments?

I have said several times that we are not committing ourselves by this Resolution.

Attention has already been drawn to the absence of any representative of the Treasury, and I was under the impression that some action would be taken, and that a representative would be sent for. I have seen several representatives of the Treasury about the building, and the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Towyn Jones)—

That is not in order.

Question put, "That it is expedient to authorise further payments, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the salaries and allowances of Resident Magistrates in Ireland and to amend the Law relating thereto."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 8.

Resolution to be Reported upon Monday next.

This Resolution deals with the position of salaries of under-sheriffs and bailiffs in Ireland. The under-sheriff in Ireland is at present appointed by the high sheriff. He holds office for a year or during the period of office of the high sheriff. At present he is remunerated by a grant from the county, supplemented by one allowed by the Treasury. In most cases he gets £100 a year from the county, and about the same from the Treasury. In addition to that, during assize times the Treasury allow him a remuneration of £3 3s. per day. What we propose to do is that out of moneys provided by Parliament there should be paid to the under-sheriff of the county and borough of Dublin the sum of £250, to the under-sheriffs for other county boroughs the sum of £150, and to the under-sheriffs for the counties the sum of £200. That is the Government contribution, and the result of carrying this measure will be that the total increased expenditure will amount to £362, the savings effected by cancelling the payments now made almost balancing the sum which the House is asked to vote. The present allowance in respect of under-sheriffs and assize expenses is £8,300. The new figure is £8,662.

How many sheriffs are there?

There are 32 counties in Ireland and 3 county boroughs each with one under-sheriff and, in addition, in the case of Tipperary there are two sheriffs. This Bill has been promoted by the Government as a result of representations from various bodies representing mercantile interests in Ireland. A Committee was appointed to investigate the question, the Chairman of which was the Recorder of Dublin. Among its members were the President of the Incorporated Law Society, the President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Sir George Fottrell, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for Dublin, and a representative of the Treasury, and it is in consequence of the recommendations of that Committee that this Bill has been brought forward. The object is not so much to increase the salaries of the under-sheriffs as to give them fixity of tenure. At present they are liable to be dismissed at the end of the year. In the future they will hold office under appointment by the Lord Lieutenant, and they will become permanent officials. They will also act as returning officers and it is obvious, having regard to the responsible duties they will have to discharge, they should have some fixity of tenure.

Do we understand that this Bill involves only an additional expenditure by the Exchequer of £362?

That is in respect of under-sheriffs. In addition, however, recommendations are made by the Committee that men should be appointed as bailiffs to execute decrees of the County Courts and judgments of the Superior Courts. Those who at present in the County Courts serve civil bills get a sum of £20 per year. Originally they had £10. It is proposed to take a certain number of the best of these men and to appoint them at a salary of £40—an increase of £20 on their present remuneration, and for a certain class of business they will get small fees in addition. It is very desirable to have fairly decent men in these positions and I cannot think it will be suggested that £40 is an excessive remuneration.

How many are there?

I will give the exact numbers in Committee, but I should think that six for each county would be ample. That would mean 170 appointments, and the additional salary of £20 represents a total of £3,400. I may remind the Committee that the County Courts contribute considerably to the taxes, for each proceeding, however small, 1s. goes to the Exchequer, and if the sum involved exceeds £5, the contribution to the Exchequer is 1s. 6d. There are further stamp duties in the case of decrees and so on, and it is very desirable in the interests of the mercantile community that these men should have a reasonable salary. I have said that, respecting the Under-Sheriffs, £262 represents the total additional charge for the Treasury. Of course, we provide that the municipalities shall contribute as well, but that is quite a distinct charge. Their contributions, how-over, will be slightly increased.

Is the amount of the contribution of the municipalities taken into account in this estimate?

I think my hon. Friend will find that Dublin provides £350 as against the Government's £250 for the Under-Sheriffs. The counties provivde £250, against £150 from the Treasury.

I asked that question because, of course, if the amount we are now voting depends on the amount which the municipalities are prepared to vote, we shall have to consider whether or not there is any likelihood of the municipalities refusing to contribute.

It is not a matter of voting. The municipalities at present contribute, under Statute, to the up-keep of the Under-Sheriffs, sums varying from a maximum of £150 downwards. It is not proposed in any way to increase, beyond the figures that are here set out, the amount payable by the municipalities. The matter dealt with in the Resolution involves merely an increase of £362 from the Treasury in respect of the Under-Sheriffs, and a sum which I shall be able to deal with clearly in Committee, but which I estimate at about £4,000, in order to provide for the bailiffs.

The increase in the fees or salaries of the Under-Sheriffs is borne both by the Exchequer and by the local authorities. Is the increase in the salaries of the process servers borne partly by the Exchequer and partly by the local authorities, or does it all fall on the Exchequer?

It is all borne by the Exchequer.

It seems to me that this is a matter which is more important than appears at first sight. An increase of £362 seems small, and I rather felt inclined to let it go, as we vote millions with such cheerfulness. What the right hon. Gentleman said, however, put a rather different complexion upon it, and I am sorry that more hon. Members do not see fit to supervise this expenditure of public money. This seems to me to be peculiarly a matter which ought not to be decided by this House, but ought to be left to the Irish legislative bodies which are to be set up. This is the second of these money Resolutions affecting the judiciary in Ireland which has been brought before the Committee to-day, and when I see Bill after Bill affecting these small details of Irish judicial life, I suspect strongly that the Government are not in earnest in their policy. I should not be in order in discussing that policy, but this small resolution is another straw showing which way, not the wind, but the gale is blowing. The previous Resolution was brought in on the ground of levelling up the remuneration of resident magistrates, and I think we all welcome the Government's conversion to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. This Resolution does exactly the opposite. We are asked to vote money to remunerate the Under Sheriff in Dublin at a different rate from the Under Sheriffs in the country. I can understand the argument that it is more expensive to live in Dublin than in the rest of Ireland. I do not know if it costs more to live in Belfast, to which I suppose this applies. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a wider experience of living in both places than I have, but I have certainly found Dublin to be not a cheap place to live in, although the rest of Ireland is very cheap. If his argument is that the addition is made because it costs more to live in Dublin, I think it is a most mischievous argument. I objected very much during the War to the differentiation in regard to pensions in London.

The reason for the larger amount in Dublin is that there is much more work there. The Courts are sitting constantly, whereas in Belfast they only sit for Assizes.

That explains that part of the matter, but not the difference between the remuneration in the county boroughs and in the counties. I do not know if the same explanation applies there.

indicated assent.

I understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that it does, and, personally, I am satisfied with that explanation. The next objection I have to this is that this sum of money is grossly inadequate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the under-sheriffs must be persons of some position. That means that they have a position to keep up, and it is proposed that they should do that on from £200 to £350 a year. I take it that there are certain fees, but that is the only sum that they can rely upon. In view of the increased cost of living, I consider that to be quite inadequate. I do not believe in our approving of sweated wages, and I shall have to vote against this Resolution for that reason, if for no other. To ask persons of some position, exercising important judicial functions, to live on this guaranteed wage, is, to my mind, an insult, and I am afraid it will be accounted one more affront that is put upon Ireland by this Parliament. These admirable persons, under Clause 3 of the Bill, are practically prohibited from accepting any other employment. They are not allowed to practice as barristers or solicitors in any Civil Bill Court, in the Court of Quarter Session, or at Assizes. I do not know whether they are allowed to engage in trade or farming, or by any other means to increase their livelihood, but they will have to do something of the sort in order to live and keep their families in any sort of decency.

With regard to the bailiffs, who are being given the princely sum—again in addition, of course, to fees—of £40 a year certain, that seems to me also to be simply heinous. I suppose they are responsible people, and have to be incorruptible. There are 170 of them in all, and the total sum they receive from the municipalities is £3,400 a year. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the case of the municipalities refusing to pay, and I think that ought to be cleared up. Otherwise, hon. Members might be under the impression that they were only voting an additional £360, which was not much to quarrel about. This, however, is a matter of £3,400 in the event of the municipalities refusing to pay. A great many muncipalities in Ireland are, of set purpose, deliberately refusing in any way to help the Local Government Board or the Executive—in fact, they are almost obstructing—and I should think there will be many cases of refusal to pay. Although the Crown can put the law in motion to attach their property and distrain upon them, that would mean a great deal of delay, and in the meantime these unfortunate bailiffs would be on their beam ends. Undoubtedly the Treasury will make advances, and this House will be asked to authorise the payment of the sums involved. I think that matter ought to be cleared up before we pass this Resolution.

Finally, I come to the most damning part of this Resolution and the Bill which is founded on it, in that this gives more power to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint persons to public offices because of their political opinions. Under the Bill the power of appointing these under-sheriffs—I take it there are people who wish to be under-sheriffs; there are probably some social advantages to be gained thereby—is taken from the sheriffs and vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and that is only increasing once more the power that is exercised far too much in Ireland, as I am sure hon. Members from North-East Ulster will admit. It applies in the South and in the North both ways, because of their religion or their politics. In the South you have men appointed because they belong to one denomination or one political party, and in the North because they belong to exactly the opposite, and that is one of the curses and banes of Irish life. Here you are vesting that matter still more greatly in the Lord Lieutenant. It means that any man who wants to be an under-sheriff in theory must satisfy the Lord Lieutenant and in practice must satisfy one of the permanent officials at Dublin Castle, who will naturally, I am afraid, only appoint a man of one particular political complexion. If for no other reason than that, apart from the sweated wage offered to these men in these times, I shall have to vote against the Resolution.

I have never heard more contradictory speeches than those which have been delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). On the last occasion he voted with his friends against a living wage. On this occasion he is opposing this Bill, because in his opinion it does not give a living wage. I hope the friends of the blind will notice the collusion that is taking place, which is pure obstruction to the third Order.

Withdraw.

I am in the hands of the Chair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman intervenes more and creates more ill feeling than any other man in the House, and then when he is replied to begins to shout "Withdraw" without rhyme or reason. I think he ought to understand that other Members in the House have privileges as well as himself. I am deeply interested in the next question.

So are we.

It is deliberate obstruction, and I hope the friends of the blind will recognise the combination that is trying to prevent these unfortunate people getting justice.

I am here to support the Blind Bill. I appeal to hon. Members not to obstruct this measure, but to let the Blind Bill come on; otherwise they may talk till five o'clock and the blind people will be neglected.

I am as interested in the blind as the last two hon. Members who have spoken, and they need have no anxiety about the Bill going through. They had better have waited a little longer before making the observations they have made. I rise to express my strong disappointment at the lack of information which has been forthcoming from the Minister in Charge concerning the Resolution we are now considering. One of the most important proposals before us is the question of the appointment of Under-Sheriffs. If there is any objection I have to arrangements which have arisen out of the War, it is that there is to much centralisation. For no reason that I can gather from the Minister in Charge, it is proposed to make some very drastic changes, and before we pass the Resolution we ought to have some real reason. There is also the question of the payment of these Under-Sheriffs. The Minister dealt with the necessity of getting responsible and reliable and the best class of men it is possible to get for these very important positions. If you look at the salaries which are given to these important and better class individuals, you will find they start at something like £150 per annum. I do not know what the Labour party have to say to that magnificent sum for a superior, well-educated, well-trained, reliable person.

Some went into the Lobby last time in favour of a living wage.

Some of the hon. Member's colleagues were in the same Lobby. I was not there, but some of his Friends were in that position. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what class of superior, well-educated persons he expects to get for a salary of £150 a year. We are entitled to further information on these points, and I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

2.0 P.M.

I should not have been anxious to examine the proposal if it had not been for the amazing speech of the hon Member (Mr. Seddon). He visits the House very rarely, and he expects the House immediately he arrives to sit to attention while he delivers his speech. I do not think since Colonel Pride came into our midst there has been anything quite like it.

I have sat here as long as the hon. and gallant Gentleman—since the House started.

The hon. Member should know from his long experience that this is a Committee intended to examine financial proposals put before it. The fact that he wishes to get on to a proposition about the blind, with which we all most earnestly sympathise and intend to support—

Let us get to it.

The hon. Member is impatient. I do not propose to get to it till we have disposed of this Resolution. What sort of right has he to insist that the moment he arrives, the Bill he is interested in should be considered, and that everyone else should be silent? I have never heard of such a thing. The sooner he habituates himself to the ordinary procedure and courtesies of the House the better it will be for the conduct of business.

You are not a very good judge of courtesy.

It is not our fault that the Government has put down Money Resolutions, and then whispered round the Lobbies that it is indecent to oppose them because there is something important that is to follow. The Attorney-General does not do it, but the myrmidons do it—the minions. We are told it is not decent to discuss a financial Resolution because there is something of importance coming on. I think people outside the House will not blame us for insisting, even on a Friday afternoon, in finding out the reason for a grand total expenditure of between—10,000,000 and—20,000,000 which is proposed to-day. That is the grand total of the bill of fare presented by the Patronage Secretary.

Do you object to the proposals for the blind? They are very important.

Of course, they are important, and I am in sympathy with them. We have three hours yet. Why should we not discuss other things on the Order Paper because there is a proposal of some other kind coming on later? We are here examining the proposed payment in respect to salaries and allowances of sheriffs in Ireland, and they are matters of importance on which I wish to ask questions. If they are satisfactorily answered and we can come to a decision, we can get to the next proposal. First of all, I reiterate what was said on the other Resolution, that it is not a right thing for us to legislate now and to make changes in the framework of Irish legislation if the Government is in earnest on the Irish Home Rule Bill.

This question has been repeated three times, and it comes under the Rule against repetition.

I was out of the House, and I did not know that it had been mentioned before.

That is all the more important. Standing Order 19 is directed against Members repeating things that have been said by themselves or other Members.

I know the Standing Order well. I was not aware that other Members had mentioned it on this Resolution. My second point is that it is proposed to transfer the appointment and the payment of these officers from the local to the central authority. They were formerly appointed by the High Sheriffs, but they are to be appointed in future by the Lord Lieutenant. We should not have to vote this money if the change was not being made. This means an increase in the central fund, and the reason we have this Resolution, I presume, is because the High Sheriffs cannot in the eyes of the Government be trusted.

indicated dissent.

I think some of the High Sheriffs have refused to appoint under-sheriffs. This Resolution is an integral part of a new proposal to centralise the government and to destroy all vestige of local control in Ireland.

That may be in the Bill, but it is not in the Resolution. This Resolution authorises only the financial part of the Bill. Any criticism of the Bill must be reserved until we come to the Bill itself.

It is very difficult for us to consider adequately the proposals of the Government when so much of them have a purely financial bearing. I am anxious to keep within your ruling. The Leader of the House, in reference to these money resolutions, gave a pledge that we should have an estimate laid before us of all the costs that would be involved, but the White Paper, Command Paper 748, dealing with this resolution does not fulfil the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman. We should like to know what the total charge is to be. The resolution says that we are to "authorise the payment out of monies provided by Parliament of annual sums not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds each to under-sheriffs, and of increased salaries not exceeding forty pounds per annum each to process servers who are also bailiffs." We cannot know what cost that involves until we know the number of the persons concerned. Has that occurred to the hon. Member for Hanley? We do not know what amount of money we are voting. I want to know how many of these people are to be appointed, in order that we may know what sum is likely to fall on the consolidated fund. Is that an unreasonable request or an obstruction? This money has been found by the municipalities in Ireland.

Not the whole.

Part of it. Is there any reason to suppose that they will pay it? Is it not true that 29 out of 33 local authorities have refused to acknowledge the authority of the Local Government Board? Therefore a sum of money which was previously paid by the local authorities is going to come out of the Imperial Exchequer.

No.

That is what the Resolution says—"out of monies provided by Parliament." What is the number of these officials, and what will be the total cost?

Two of the hon. and gallant Member's colleagues have already put all these questions seriatim. The hon. Member is not fair to the Committee. I have warned him of the Standing Order as to repetition, and I must now ask him to resume his seat.

I desire to offer a personal explanation. The Chairman has already called the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that his arguments have been repeated more than six times by—

It will be wise to leave that to the Chair.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

I am unable to entertain the two Amendments which appear on the Order Paper [To leave out the words "who have attained the age of fifty"—Mr. Stephen Walsh and Mr. Frederick Roberts; to insert the words "and any expenses incurred by the councils of counties and county boroughs"—Sir H. Harris]—both of them going beyond the authority which the Rules of Procedure lay down.

It will be observed that this Resolution is limited to paying the pension to blind persons of the age of 50 or over, and the conditions are set out in the Bill itself. The fact is that 50 per cent. practically of those persons are over the age of 50. The age of 50 has been chosen because we propose to deal otherwise with the difficulties and disabilities of blind persons under 50. Persons below that age are more or less trainable. We hope to assist in the provision of facilities for training in a large number of cases, involving contributions to the support of existing institutions, and we propose to pay an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. of the outgoings of the local authorities on their schemes. Some of those who are anxious, as all of us are, to promote the welfare of blind persons may wish to see the age limit reduced, but we think that it is necessary to try to develop a system of training, education and assistance which will encourage the blind people to help themselves, and as regards blind persons under the age of 50 the provisions of the Bill will be just as generous as in the case of the others. All our sympathies would be in the direction of taking a lower age limit, but I think that that would not be the right policy to undertake, and we have taken the age of 50 because it seems to be about the limit of trainable age, and the age above which at least half the blind persons are included. In some respects blind persons are dealt with more generously under the training scheme than they would be under this Measure without the training. I make these observations to explain why it is we put the limit at 50, and to point out that those below that age will be dealt with under the scheme which we are otherwise providing.

I understand that I should not be in order in moving either of the Amendments on the Paper, and that the discussion must be confined to the Resolution which has been submitted. We cannot regard this as a satisfactory provision for the necessities of the blind. The Resolution makes reference to the duties of the local authorities and the provision that is to be made for them. I understand that the practice has been up to the present that grants have been made to voluntary agencies, and it is now intended by the Ministry of Health to extend these grants to the local authorities and to give them an allowance up to 50 per cent. of their net expenditure, and over and above that to make contributions of 50 per cent. on the capital outlay of the local authorities. On that last point I think that there is considerable confusion. Many of the institutions are in doubt as to whether they also will be entitled to the 50 per cent. of capital expenditure which has been laid down by the Minister of Health for the local authorities. They want to know what their financial position is to be compared with local authorities in general. They want to find out how they are going to meet it under the new structure that will be called into being by this Bill.

It is important that the Committee should have information on these points, but I confess that to many of us on this side by far the more important part of the Resolution refers to the provision which is to be made for blind persons. The Resolution provides in a single sentence that we are going to make old age pensions available, and, I take it from the memorandum which has been circulated, on substantially the conditions which apply to old age pensioners at large, to blind persons at fifty years of age. No doubt other provision will be made and training, etc., will be forthcoming, but it cannot be contended by anyone who has been associated with the care of the blind, either from the point of view of the employés or the institutions which may be regarded as the employers that this provision is satisfactory. There is agreement on the part of the National League of the Blind and also on the part of managers of institutions that, no matter how far you train blind persons, in only a handful of cases are these persons able to earn what is called an economic wage, and that some form of State allowance or assistance is absolutely necessary if these persons are to maintain decent conditions of life. That is a perfectly unanswerable proposition.

Many of us who have been associated with training schemes for the blind say that only in a limited number of cases of men of exceptional ability, courage and power have they been able to earn any kind of economic return. It is true that under this Resolution they bring in old age pensions within their reach at fifty years of age, but the contention not merely of the National League of the Blind, but also of the managers of these institutions is that that sum should be available throughout the whole range of the age of blindness for these people. If they can earn an economic wage, well and good; but we must provide for them much more generously than we have done under this Resolution. There is another point of criticism which is even more important from some points of view. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the majority of blind persons are over fifty years of age. I find it very difficult to reconcile the statement in the memorandum with the actual facts of blindness in this country. The memorandum says that the numbers to be covered are approximately 8,400 people, and my right hon. Friend says that about half the blind people will be covered.

The point is that this deals with blind persons between the ages of fifty and seventy. Of course there is a large number of blind persons over the age of seventy who are already under the Old Age Pensions Act.

I am obliged for that explanation, but am bound to point out that, while to some extent it meets the case we have in mind, there are at this time approximately 35,000 blind persons in this country, and we cannot contend for a moment that their needs are adequately met by the provision we are making for this Bill. I regret that we have been precluded, by the rules of the House, from moving a definite amendment. We must keep clearly in view the fact that we are passing a Resolution which will largely govern the measure we are afterwards to discuss in Committee, and it is from that point of view mainly that I press not merely for an explanation but for some better provision for these defenceless, almost hopeless, and certainly distressed section of the community.

I agree with the last speaker, that while this represents some acknowledgment by the State of its responsibility to these people, the question remains as to what is the method by which we shall apply the principle of dealing with them. That has an important bearing on the whole problem. We have to determine whether private endeavour is still to deal with this terrible affliction, with the assistance and co-operation of the State, or whether the State is to accept the whole responsibility of dealing with the blind. Those are the alternatives we have to consider. I say that the Government will never be able to deal with the problem effectively unless we eliminate entirely the age limit in this Resolution. The hon. Member who spoke last said that the societies wanted to know where they will stand in respect of this contribution. If he will permit me to say so, I have here documentary proof that that is not altogether what the societies require. I speak with some authority on this matter. Mr. McGregor represented the Ministry of Health at a recent conference, and I should like to pay my tribute to that representative, for he has done splendid work in advising the Minister on this matter. At that conference there were also present representatives of the great institutions for the blind in such cities and towns as Darlington, Northampton, Bradford, Liverpool, Accrington, Tottenham, Oxford, Manchester, Birmingham, Salford, Swansea, and many other places. They were discussing how to increase the public contributions after the Bill should become law. The blind institutions of this country have done splendid work. The Minister of Health states that this scheme is to cost £220,000 in a full year. He will require not less than £400,000 were he to deal with the whole problem of the blind. I accept the statement that it is right that as youthful an age as possible should be chosen in order to give the afflicted an opportunity industrially to earn their living. Not one of them desires charity. It is on that ground that they object to the system in utilising the agency of so many institutions to-day. It will be necessary, as the conference held, for all these charitable institutions to be continued as also for soliciting contributions for same. The Bill will not eliminate any of them. Many hon. Members will, no doubt, be delighted to contribute voluntarily to these institutions in future, and we all accept the view that the governors and managers of these institutions are helpful. But I suggest that, for reasons which are obvious, they cannot give such efficient control and leadership as could be obtained if this became a State machine, properly handled and controlled under the auspices of the Minister of Health.

I suggest that even now the age limit for pensions should be eliminated and the problem dealt with in its widest sense. Whereas, if this proposal goes through, I repeat (and apologise for thus emphasising the fact) we shall be compelled in future to contribute to the support of these institutions. I hold that there is no section of the public which would not be willing to pay in ordinary taxes for the support of the institutions and for dealing with the problem in the fullest and widest sense, providing education, elementary, secondary and university. On the commercial side there should be a protected market for the work of the blind. These things cannot be done in the best way if the matter is left, on the one hand to private institutions, and on the other to the Minister of Health, both working on one problem, the results cannot be perfect or the most useful. We feel we could trust the Minister. The blind themselves would accept their full responsibility under his helpful guidance and influence as representative of the State, and would prefer that arrangement to such a scheme as is now proposed.

It would be wasting time unnecessarily if I went over the ground covered by the last speaker. His suggestions and principles coincide exactly with my own. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that neither the Bill nor the money Resolution could be satisfactory to the blind persons in whose interest the measure has, apparently, been introduced. May I say without offence that it is trifling with the subject to treat this question of the blind by saying that you will give an old age pension at fifty years of age.

There is much more in it than that.

That is one of the proposals, and I repeat that I think it is trifling with the question, which should be dealt with as a State question. I do not like to oppose the Bill in order to compel the Government to bring in a Bill on the lines suggested because it might be said that I was opposing the interests of the blind which I have very warmly at heart. For the same reason, while I should like by opposition to this money Resolution to compel the Government to bring in a Bill which would be more satisfactory, yet we must support the Resolution for what it is worth. Clause 2 of the Bill says: It shall be lawful for the Council of any County or County Borough to provide and maintain, or to contribute, towards the provision and maintenance of workshops, hostels, homes, or other places for the reception of blind persons. I suppose that this Resolution to some extent covers that proposal, but it is a proposal which will not work, and which will be absolutely in operative. The rates in the borough with which I am connected are 16s. or 17s. in the £, and is it likely that the ratepayers will pay for hostels for the blind, or is it fair that a burden of that kind should be put on the local authorities when they cannot bear it. The Bill, in my opinion, is inadequate. It approaches the subject from the wrong direction. I do not like to use strong language, but I do say it does not meet the case of the blind at all. We cannot make a proposal to increase the charge in a money Resolution, and in that we are at the mercy of the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him whether he cannot enlarge his scheme in some form, and, if necessary, expand it in such a way that it will really meet the needs of these people who have been waiting for many years, and with whom I am sure he sympathises. His speech on the Second Reading was admirable in tone but the Bill, I am sorry to say, was disappointing.

I hope that the two hon. Members who preceded me will look at this money Resolution in a different way. This Resolution is not an integral part of the Bill, and if you reject it, then, and only then, will be the Government be compelled to introduce a money Resolution more in accordance with what we wish, and more in accordance with the mind of the country. If the Bill is passed, and this Resolution, good-bye for many years, possibly ten years, to any hopes of a real Bill to help the blind.

It is possible to recommit the Bill for another financial Resolution if the Bill be altered in Committee.

The only chance of getting the sort of Bill we want is to reject this money Resolution. Any Amendment contrary to the financial Resolution would be ruled out of order in Committee. This is our real opportunity of pointing out to the Government that the vast majority of people in this House and in the country believe that in dealing with the question of the blind we should deal with it on a thorough basis instead of a charity basis. I have always advocated economy, but in this case that question does not come in, because the blind people have to be kept at present. They are kept by dutiful sons or daughters or by the subscriptions of charitable Members of this House, and the people at large, and particularly the poor. What we wish is to put on the shoulders of the community a burden which is already being borne by some people in the community. It is true it is not shown in the taxes, but it is a tax, and we want to deal with the question so that the good citizen alike will contribute to this burden, which is essentially a first-charge, or, if we consider the wounded from the War, a second charge on the taxes of this country. I do ask my colleagues to think twice before voting for this Resolution. Our only hope to do our duty by the blind lies in doing what is apparently the wrong thing, namely, to vote against this financial Resolution. It is just the same as when you move to reduce a Minister's salary by £100 when you really want to get an increased grant for a particular service. Therefore I ask my colleagues to vote against this Resolution in order to show that the Labour party will have nothing to do with blessing a Bill which does not touch the fringe of the problem, and which does not make the blind a charge on the whole of the community. There is another feature of this proposal with which I will have nothing to do, and that is that in these pensions it perpetuates the horrible sliding scale system. A man who can prove that he has got nothing receives a pension of 10s. per week, and the man who, unfortunately for himself, has saved something gets 5s. per week. That system is so obviously wrong in principle and so horrible in practice that it leads to lying throughout the whole country, and I cannot understand why, after ten years' experience of it in old age pensions, it should be again proposed in this Bill. It leads to corruption and lying of every sort and kind, and it is fundamentally wrong to penalise thrift in this way. Because we want to get a real Bill, and because if this Resolution goes through we shall not, I shall vote against this Resolution.

I think we are all agreed that while the voluntary institutions in the country have done great work in making provision for the blind, the problem with which we are now confronted has outgrown the facilities of those voluntary institutions. The general desire is that the State should take over the whole of this problem. I think the first four words in Clause 2, "it shall be lawful," should be changed to "it shall be compulsory" on local authorities to do what is set out. Having regard to the fact that there is a promise of 50 per cent. of the expenditure, some provision of that kind is called for. The great objection I have to this proposal is that the pensions for those between the ages of 50 and 70 are to be at the same rate and on the same conditions as attach to old age pensions. One of the most painful duties I have had to perform in a somewhat lengthy experience of public administration has been in adjudicating upon reports of pensions officers in respect of the means of people who apply for old age pensions. A man may be getting 1s. a week here, or half-a-crown a week there, or a meal a day from an old lady, and all these things are tabulated, and the old age pensioner is penalised in the operation. The overwhelming experience of old age pension administration has led us to the conviction that the only qualification for an old age pension should be the test of a birth certificate, and even if there are a few instances where imposition has been tried, it will be more than counter-balanced from the point of view of saving the tremendous official expenditure involved under the present system of irritating inquiries. If the same conditions apply to the blind people, we are going to have officials going round to the homes of these people and asking who assists them, how much they have got in the bank, whether they have got a half-a-crown here, or whether in the days when they could work they did not have a trifle of money in the "Co-op.," and we are going to perpetuate these irritating conditions of inquiry and investigation.

If we are going to give pensions to people who are blind at 50, let us give it to them at 50 without any other qualification. One's experience in public life has led one to the point of view that if we cannot always get what we like, it is as well to try and like what we can get, and therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am going to take what I can get in a Bill of this character and, like the dissatisfied individual we have heard of, go on asking for more. I agree with a previous speaker that the day has come when the community in its collective capacity should take absolute responsibility for dealing with blind people, and that we should not rely at all upon voluntary institutions. The penalty under which the blind suffer, they have not as a rule contributed to themselves. It is an infliction imposed upon them by nature, and the best the State could do, the State ought to do in this direction. So let us have no more half measures or pettifogging regulations and restrictions, but let us take the whole and complete responsibility on to our shoulders.

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I regret very much that 50 years has been inserted in the Resolution. For many years I have taken an interest in the blind people, and I am bound to say, that I think the whole community deserve great credit for the way in which they have supported the voluntary institutions in the past. At the same time, I think the time has come when the Government ought to take over these institutions and look well after the blind. I will give an instance of a case that came to my notice to show that, after all, it is the poor people who keep the blind. A friend of my own who, by an explosion in a mine, had lost an arm and his eyesight, being an independent Scotsman, thought he could carry on and keep his family going by selling tea. When the War broke out he was not permitted to sell his tea, although many of us tried hard to get the Government to relax the operations, so that this man could go on, but at last he was compelled to give up, and a few friends, including myself, for two years, had to collect as much money every week as would keep that man from starvation. There are many cases of the same kind, and I thought at the time that it was absolutely wrong that a decent man, who had paid his way until he had met with his accident, and who was willing to work for his family, should have to depend on his friends for getting the necessities of life.

I think that in every case the blind people, who are handicapped in every walk of life, ought to have some assistance from the State in such a way that they shall have a decent living; the young people especially, who become blind through no fault of their own, ought to be looked after by the State and trained so as to be useful members of society. I think it is a great mistake that there should be grades as we have in this Memorandum. I cannot see why any decent working man who has saved some money and put it by for his old age should be penalised when he reaches 70 years and seeks an old age pension. I think he more deserves the pension than the wastrel who has spent all his means and been a burden on the community. In this particular case of the blind I think the whole grading system should go, and that every man, apart from the money he has laid past him, should be entitled to a pension. I am not prepared to go so far as some of my hon. Friends opposite and vote against this Resolution. I think half a loaf is better than no bread, and I am willing to take this, but I hope that before long the Government will bring in a new Bill on a better basis and take the whole responsibility for looking after the interests of blind people.

If I thought a heroic course such as throwing out the Resolution would bring about the result we desire I would follow it, but I am doubtful. To believe that if we rejected this Resolution the Minister would go back and get a larger sum would be to believe, first of all, that he had not already done all he could in this direction, and I am sure that that is not correct. I am certain that if this Bill is not what we want to see it, it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault. He does not lack either heart or will to give what everybody wants; what he lacks really is the power. There is not the slightest chance of his getting the assent of the Government to the extension of this liability. After all, there is only one purse into which to dip. and when the right hon. Gentleman comes forward to put his hand in the bag he finds there are a good many hands in besides his own. The real trouble is the will and the sympathy on the part of the Government as a whole. They do not view this matter as the House views it. If the right hon. Gentleman could only get the Government to see this in the light of it being an investment, he might be able to get the money. After all, what better investment could there be for the moderate amount of money that would be required, than the purpose which this Bill is intended to promote? I do not know whether the Secretary for War has more persuasive powers than the right hon. Gentleman iin charge of this Bill. I think the Government as a whole value scarlet uniforms more than they value the interests of the blind. What we are up against is money difficulties. We are not up against practical difficulties. There is all the disposition in this House and country to do everything possible that can be done for the blind, and the only trouble is the money, which cannot be got, because the income of the country is being applied in directions which limit the resources of this country for purposes such as these. The right hon. Gentleman said it was desirable that blind people should be occupied, that they would be happier if they were occupied, and that it was desirable, so far as possible, that they should maintain themselves. We all agree that they should, so far as possible, maintain themselves, and in so doing their lives would be happier than otherwise. But when the right hon. Gentleman takes that for not meeting what he is asked, he omits the fact that people under the age of fifty who are thrown upon their resources are not helped in the way they might be helped by the Bill, because the provisions for training are permissive.

I would suggest that this is quite outside the terms of the Resolution.

I am simply meeting the argument that the right hon. Gentleman himself adduced, when he was resisting the appeal made to him. I understand that argument to be that we must not go below fifty, because below fifty blind people can, to some extent, support themselves. Admitting that to be so, the Bill itself does not help them in that direction, and if the Minister were going to rely on that argument the Bill should contain an obligatory and not a permissive regulation.

3.0 P.M.

I am bitterly opposed to this Resolution as it now stands. The Minister knows that the opinion of the House on this matter was expressed fully when the Bill was discussed, and I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite to adopt the only way of showing our protest. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that if we carry the Bill in its present form we shall not get this Amendment for a very considerable time. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to the sliding scale, objectionable as I believe it to be. I dislike it immensely, but for my own part I believe it must be made, and it is because the Government have introduced this sliding scale into their Bill that I think their position is so very weak. If the man is over the age of fifty he will only get his eight shillings provided he is practically destitute. That provision is there already, but are we to say we are not prepared to grant even that amount to a man under the age of fifty with the conditions as they stand here that he is blind and destitute? I know the difficulties of the Government and of the Minister of Health. I know full well his sympathies. I know he has gone to the Treasury and made demands which have been rejected, but we believe that by throwing out the Resolution to-day we shall strengthen his hand against the Treasury. On broader policy, I would once again like to reaffirm my conviction. The economic system under which we live stands threatened, and so long as we allow certain glaring evils to remain in our present system, and do not carry our broken men freely and willingly, those of us who would offer defence stand in a weak position. For my part, I regard the money provisions as completely inadequate, and I regard the age limit as completely unexplainable, and I shall go with the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the Lobby.

I should like to support what has fallen from the last speaker, and also the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I detest this grading system, and I am sorry the provisions of the Financial Resolution so greatly limit the Amendments which can be moved, or the improvements which can be worked into this Bill in Committee. I agree it is not from any lack of sympathy arising from the right hon. Gentleman's own heart, or from a lack of his endeavours that we are in this impasse to-day. What I want to know is: what answer he got from the Treasury as to the likelihood in the near or distant future of remedying this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is the policy, so far as he knows, to continue the treatment, in promoting the welfare of blind persons, the form of this Bill for the next ten, fifteen, or twenty years, or is this only a temporary provision to last for the next three, four or five years? I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard the speeches of the various hon. Members who have put forward these points, and also this particular point. Looking upon this matter as I do, I shall certainly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Lobby; and because I am going to do that I want to give my reasons, so that it should not be said afterwards that out of any lack of sympathy for blind persons I voted against the Resolution.

In a few words I desire to support the observations that have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne in regard to the inadequate provisions contained in the Financial Resolution dealing with the welfare of the blind. Coming from the district I do, I should be failing in my duty were I not to register the disappointment that will be felt there when they find that it is only proposed to deal with, I think I am safe in saying, less than 5 per cent. of the blind in that district. I come from an industry where the men who are afflicted with blindness, if not unfortunately been born blind, are men afflicted between the ages of 35 and 45. There is no provision at present in the Workmen's Compensation Act for this blindness which comes gradually upon the men and as a matter of course, and they are not able to claim any relief as if the affliction had been brought about by accident. They are beyond the age where they can be trained for any useful occupation. Just imagine the miner who has gone underground at 14 and remained there until 40, especially in a district where there are no other industries except coal mines. He gets nystagmus at the age of 40. I should like the Minister to point out how it is possible in any shape or form to enable these men to be trained for any useful industry to enable them to obtain a living wage. That is our main objection. That is why I am going to vote against this Resolution.

The Resolution cuts out altogether from its provisions 95 per cent. of the men who go blind in districts like ours, and who are engaged in the coal industry. I obtain that from figures that I have been well acquainted with, having been general secretary for close upon 50,000 men for over twenty years before I went to the War. The other objection is in regard to the rates and conditions that are going to be applied, as if this was going to be an old age pension. I should like to urge upon the Minister that this memorandum points out that this will entail an expenditure of £220,000. Double that if you like and make it £440,000, or put it at the highest possible, even if you make it £500,000. I say it will be in the interests of this country that we should deal generously, certainly justly, with these people who have got beyond the stage of being able to help themselves. If you want to reduce discontent and show the people that you are really out for their welfare, the way to do it is to spend money less extragantly than some Ministers are doing, and spend, if need be, the £500,000, or more, in getting this question put right, and giving these poor folk some hope of happiness in the future.

Believing as I do in the absolutely inadequate provision put forward, I desire entirely to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, and I trust that my reason for doing so will not be misunderstood in the constituency which I represent.

When the Government took over this Bill of the Labour party I was hopeful that we were going to do a great deal for the people concerned in this financial Resolution. When the Government decided to grant these people of 50 years 10s. per week that somwehat modified our desire, yet we were hopeful of better things. I may say that I am amazed at the fact that in this financial resolution the Government are perpetuating the bad old system that operates under the Old Age Pension Acts. I have been in the unfortunate position of sitting in the Chair of an Old Age Pensions Committee for some years. That in itself is sufficiently humiliating when you have got the old people to deal with, and it will be a very, very painful duty indeed laid upon the Chairman of a committee when the committees have to deal with blind persons under the same conditions as those under which he had to deal with the old people before. I wonder if the Government really understands what the situation is under the administration of the Old Age Pension Acts? You will have an old woman coming before the committee who has no income, or perhaps very little. Instead of awarding her 10s. she is awarded perhaps 2s. or 3s., and it is difficult to make out why this should be—at least so the old folk think—in view of the fact that she has apparently very little to work upon. The Old Age Pensions Officer makes inquiry. He finds, perhaps, that the old lady is living with some relations, and is not paying anything for her support. The officer at once says that seeing she is being kept by relatives—out of the kindness of their hearts, mark—the award must be cut down accordingly, the calculated cost of the keep of the old lady being put down as income. If the blind people happen to be living with relatives under the rules laid down by the Local Government Board, the officer will be compelled to assess the amount of their income at 8s. or 10s. per week, as the case may be, and this because of the kindness of their friends. I remember one of the most painful and yet one of the most humorous incidents during my chairmanship of that Board. An old woman came before us and said that she was puzzled why the Pensions officer should say that she had 8s. per week. She said that she had "nowt." This says that these pensions shall be granted at the same rates and under the same conditions as old age pensions. I say, frankly, that unless the Government are going to give these people this 10s. per week without enquiry this thing is not worth the paper upon which it is written. The Committee to which I have referred is blamed for being too sympathetic, because it is made up mostly of working people. I do not know what is done on some of the other committees. They may be as good or even better, but I have a suspicion that there are committees which are worse. It is unfair that people who are blind should have to present themselves before the Committee and lay bare all their private circumstances. The same ought to apply to them as applies to all other pensions. When a Civil servant gets his pension no one inquires what is his income or what are his private circumstances. I may be wrong, but I understand that if a minister retires and claims his pension—apart from the fact that he may say that he is destitute and everybody believes it—there is no prying into his private affairs. I say emphatically that this House will be fully justified in voting against this financial provision because of the indignity which it inflicts upon blind people. We did hope that this pension, little as it is, would have been granted without conditions, and that these people would have been able to live in decency and thus be relieved of the necessity of going into the streets to beg to the shame of us all. I trust that the Government will see their way to withdraw this financial provision with a view of giving these people the 10s. per week, little as it is, without any enquiry into their private affairs.

I am very sorry that the House has taken up the attitude that that it has in this matter, and I would earnestly ask hon. Members to reconsider their position. I consider that they are going in for very bad tactics. I do not think that we ought to throw out a Bill which brings benefit to many blind people in the country. I understand from hon. Members who have spoken that they are going to vote against this Bill.

The Money Resolution.

That is the same thing.

Perhaps, Sir, you will kindly make clear to these hon. Members that if they throw out the Money Resolution, it means the defeat of the Bill.

That is so. The Bill cannot proceed without the Money Resolution.

Would it not be possible for the Government to introduce another Money Resolution for the same Bill?

Certainly, if a fresh Committee were set up.

My point has been made quite clear. I laid stress upon the question that I put to the Government, urging them to withdraw this Resolution, and bring in another.

I think that my point has been made clear by your answer, Sir. If these extremists throw out this Bill, they will do a great deal of harm to many blind people in the country. They will be taking on their own shoulders the responsibility of refusing the benefits which this Bill will give. I am not for one moment saying that these people should not get greater benefits, but half a loaf is better than no bread. It would be very unwise and unkind for this House to throw out this Bill which, however inadequate it may be, is meant for the benefit of the blind of the country. We do not know what the reasons of the Ministry may be. They may not have been able to obtain better terms. It would be far better to accept this Bill and then agitate for improved conditions. I would therefore urge fair-minded Members not to be carried away and to refuse these benefits for these poor people by the oratory of certain extremists.

I do not think that I have ever listened to more humiliating proposals than those embodied in this Memorandum. It is admitted by everyone that blindness is the greatest affliction that can overtake any human being. The blind for years and years have been merely the object of private charity, and, while I say nothing against those who have contributed to such charitable institutions, it has been totally inadequate, and in addition to the darkness which their affliction brings, the blind have had to endure the misery of penury and want. This has been a disgrace to our civilisation let alone our Christianity and the chivalry of our race. There can be no party division on a question like this. It is not a party question at all. It is a question where men and women, recognising a grievous wrong, can with goodwill come together and by their association force a recalcitrant Treasury to do justice to a long-suffering class. The last speaker seemed to infer that if these Resolutions are defeated the responsibility will be upon those who are against the miserable proposals contained in the Memorandum. It might be a serious thing for some, but speaking for myself, I would rather incur that danger than do this thing in this way, and inflict a greater wrong upon a large number of blind people in this country. After all, the discussions in this House, and the expressions of sympathy and sentiment with these people on the Second Reading have raised the hopes of 35,000 of these people from one end of the country to the other. It has been a glimmer of hope in their darkness, that at last the country was going to recognise the most hopeless section of the community. I have spoken with those unfortunate people who are compelled to eke out a miserable existence standing on the pavement asking for charity or selling some small wares, and I was struck and pleased to find that the mere hope that Parliament was going to relieve them from their present condition, had given them more joy in life than they had ever had before.

What is the figure we are dealing with? If we gave £1 a week to every one of these people, it would form but a mere moiety of the expenditure of this country, and it would be money well spent. Here we have a proposal limited to £220,000 upon a graduated scale. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last but one, that in the administration of a Pensions Act, there is nothing more humiliating or heartbreaking to these people, than to have to go through a form of inquisition. I have been associated indirectly with our poor law system from my youth upwards, and it was always a charge against that system that even men with good hearts had to administer a cast-iron system. We have here a chance of redeeming the past, and of doing justice to this long-suffering body of people. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. We were asked yesterday to vote £1,500,000 for a new Government Department. Surely, if we can vote this money so readily for huge salaries, the least we can do is to say to these unfortunate people, "Whatever burden it throws upon our shoulders, we will see that justice is done to you, and you shall have some of the joys of life, so far as creature comforts will secure them." I deplore the Government's parsimony in this matter, and I feel that it will create a feeling amongst the blind of despair, and any man who, by his vote, adds to their misery, is not only neglecting his duty, but he is aggravating a wrong that exists at the present time.

I do not intend to deal with the merits or demerits of this scheme, because I think the Members of the Committee are fairly well agreed that the proposals in the Government scheme are not satisfactory. I wish to state to the Committee how I feel on this question, and how I am going to be guided in recording my vote this afternoon. I have here a number of resolutions which have been sent to me by the Scottish National Federation of Institutions and Societies for the Blind. I agree with them in every way. I am not going to read them or explain them, except to say that I do attach a great deal of importance to one particular resolution which they have put forward, which is to the effect that under the Government scheme the interests of blind persons in scattered areas cannot possibly be properly looked after. It is easy enough to deal under the Government scheme with blind persons in a city, where you have a few hundred cases which may be looked after by the council or the local authority.

In such cases you may get a real attempt by the council or the local authority to deal with them, but you will never get a council or a local authority to set themselves to deal in any proper manner with two or three blind persons in a scattered area. Therefore, it seems to me that to deal with these people you must have something like a centralised board, dealing with all the blind people in the country in a standard way, and dealing with them in a way in which they can never be dealt with under this scheme. I have to consider what I can do to give effect to the recommendations of this society, and I find that I am prevented by this Financial Resolution. This is the last opportunity hon. Members will have to express their opinion of this scheme, short of rejecting the Bill altogether. Therefore, it seems to me the Committee ought to use this last opportunity to vote against this Resolution. Like others who have spoken, I wish to guard myself against my action being interpreted as being a vote against this Bill, in the sense that I think it would leave the position very much better than the present one. I think this proposal is an improvement upon the present position, but it is much less than is necessary, and if we let this proposal through, we shall get no scheme of any kind for many years to come. Therefore I intend to vote against this Resolution.

In view of the general expression of opinion from all quarters of the House, I hope the Government will withdraw this Resolution, and bring in another which will deal with this question not in a niggardly, but in a true British fashion. The money provided in this Resolution is not sufficient to meet the necessities of the case. It is a question whether we can keep the blind people in comfort who are on the very edge of starvation? I believe it is the determination of the country to deal generously with those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their sight either before or after the War. They are the most pathetic section of our population. I do not see why they should be compared with old-age pensioners at all. A great majority of old-age pensioners can take care of themselves, and a blind person needs far more expense in managing his life than the average old-age pensioner. A blind person has to have somebody to attend upon him both in his home and out of it, and he is a very much more expensive person than the average old-age pensioner. Therefore, in order to provide them with a fair proportion of the good things of this life, they require much more money than is necessary to keep the average old-age pensioner in reasonable comfort. That is a point of view which the Government, or the Treasury, or the Ministry of Health appear to have neglected. They do not realise that the blind person needs more money than the average old-age pensioner. Many hon. Members, no doubt, are prepared with Amendments to the Bill which would involve extra expense, but it will be impossible to get them accepted under this Resolution. We must, therefore, have the Resolution altered at this stage, and I hope the Government will realise the position and withdraw the present motion. There is one other point I should like to emphasise. Some of us might be inclined to suggest Amendments which would give the Minister some elastic powers in regard to the grant. In certain of the poorer localities it might be necessary to allow a grant of more than 50 per cent. of cost, but it will be impossible to bring in any Amendment of that sort under this Resolution. I am afraid there will be many localities in which no provision whatever will be made, because it will be felt they cannot afford the expense, and in these cases the Government ought, in the interests of the blind, to take power to grant a bigger proportion of the cost, provided certain conditions are complied with by the local authorities. On these grounds, first that the blind person is not to be compared with the old-age pensioner—

I made no comparison between the blind and the old-age pensioner, except so far as it affected the machinery which is going to be set up by this Resolution. I admit there is no comparison between the two.

I understand the Government to put them on exactly the same platform in regard to the cost of upkeep, and my contention is that the blind person requires more money than the average old-age pensioner. I, therefore, hope this Resolution will be withdrawn and brought in again in an amended form.

I wish to associate myself with those who have protested against the proposal embodied in this Resolution, and particularly with the hon. Members who have spoken with experience of administration of old age pensions. Those who have been intimately connected with administration of the old age pensions scheme must come to the conclusion that income limitations should be swept away, and that all pensioners when they reach the age of 70—or, as in this Bill, the age of 50—should get the full pension granted, irrespective of their incomes. In my experience I have found that the inquiries in connection with the fixing of incomes have been made often by young office boys, or by women, who, in a most injudicious manner, have questioned applicants as to their incomes, with the result that often the true income is not returned, because gifts from friends and relations are brought in and put down as income, thereby reducing the amount granted as old age pension. There is one particular point I would like to mention. I always thought it a very unjust thing that if an applicant for an old age pension had £100 in the Post Office Savings Bank, which pays only 2½ per cent. interest, he is credited with 5 per cent. as part of his income, on the ground that, if he chose, he could get 5 per cent. on the money. I am sorry to find that in this Bill it is proposed to adopt the same machinery as under the old age pension schemes, because everyone who has had to do with the administration of those schemes condemns that machinery. It is all very well for Members on the Treasury Bench to propose Acts of Parliament which they may never have to administer. Many of us, who have had actual experience, know the difficulties, and I think the Minister in charge of this Bill should take advantage of our experience in this matter, and should alter his proposal. I suggest he should do away altogether with the qualifications, and give a pension to the blind at the age of 50, irrespective of their income. All the speeches this afternoon against this financial Resolution have come from friends of the blind. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are all friends of the blind."] Quite so, but those who have spoken to-day against the Resolution are those who met the deputation from the blind upstairs, and many of us have come under an obligation to do our best for them. I do not think we shall be doing our best if we allow this resolution to pass in its present form without protest.

I desire to associate myself with the views expressed, with, perhaps, one exception, by hon. Members representing every section of this Committee, appealing to the Government to reconsider these financial proposals which have been laid before us. What would be involved if the Government reconsidered this? We are told that the total blind population of this country number some 34,000 odd. Let us suppose that we did sweep away this grading which bas been so bitterly complained of, and granted the full amount of 10s. per week to every blind person who is likely to need it. We must realise that a large proportion of those 34,000 people will not claim or need assistance from the State, and that a certain number of them are already in Poor Law or other institutions, where they must remain. I think I should be safe in assuming that not more than, say, 20,000 of the 34,000 would be likely to avail themselves of this pension, even if it were granted. If that assumption is correct, it would mean that £500,000 per annum would be the total liability which the Treasury would be called upon to face. They are already prepared to go up to £220,000. In view of the practically unanimous desire expressed by speakers this afternoon, I appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to ask permission to withdraw his proposal, to consult the Government, and to bring fresh proposals before us at an early date. There is no difference of opinion. We are anxious for some action, and we are prepared, as has been already said, to take what I can only describe as this miserable proposal rather than nothing at all. We venture, however, to appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill not to press the matter, but to take it back and consult the Treasury, and, when it comes forward again, he can be assured of sympathetic attention from the Members of this Committee.

I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, in his description of the proposal in this Bill as "miserable." We are not now dealing with the most important part of the Bill. That, as it seems to me, is the part dealing with the training of blind persons, and the provision for their maintaining themselves.

We could not discuss that now.

Quite so. We are dealing only with the resolution which has to do with the provision of money for the payment of a pension. I have sat here during the last hour with feelings of great satisfaction. My mind went back to some twelve years ago, when I was putting forward the same ideas which have been expressed by at least a dozen speakers this afternoon, on the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Bill. I met that with the plea that we should really do the thing handsomely, that we should have no pettifogging inquiry as to a man's means, but should deal with pensioners on the same lines on which we now deal with elementary education. We regard elementary education as a public matter, and take the money for it out of public funds, making no inquiry as to the means of the parents. I have always pleaded that the same principle ought to be applied in regard to old age pensions. Looking at it to-day from a practical point of view, we find that this grading introduces a very obvious injustice. Take the case of a trade unionist who, during a life of labour, has contributed to his trade union week by week, and, at the age of sixty or sixty-five, becomes entitled to a pension of 10s. a week, or whatever it may be—sometimes it is a little more, sometimes a little less. Having paid for that, during his forty years' membership of his trade union, he becomes possessed of an income of some 10s. a week, and is thereby deprived of the right to his old age pension, although during his life of labour, he has contributed his quota to the funds from which the old age pensions are taken for other persons. That is obviously unjust, and therefore I am against grading, both on general principles and on the ground of the injustice it does to the man who has really been thrifty and has saved something. I rejoice to find that, whereas ten or twelve years ago, I was a voice crying in the wilderness, with a very few other hon. Friends, now we have the almost unanimous wish of the House, expressed, not merely from the Labour benches, but from every quarter. I rose for the purpose of adding my humble voice to those which have been already raised in an earnest appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. I realise that those who may vote against this Resolution are taking a heavy responsibility. It is set out in the Bill that it becomes opera- tive on the fourth day of June, and everyone must realise the fact that, if this Resolution be defeated to-day, in all probability, having regard to the exigencies of parliamentary time, we shall not get another day—certainly not this year, and in all probability not next year. Having regard to the almost unanimous expression of opinion from all quarters of the House, I would appeal most earnestly to my friends on the Front Bench to reconsider this matter, and not to put us in the position of voting against this Resolution.

I much regret that the Minister in charge of this Bill is not here this afternoon. The conduct of this Bill is no part of my duty, but, in the very peculiar circumstances, and as the Debate is running on the Financial Resolution—for which, of course, I am jointly responsible—I think that at this juncture I ought, perhaps, to say a few words. The Committee will recollect what the genesis of this Bill was. It was a private Bill which was taken over by the Government, and they are prepared to do their best to bring it into law. The amount allocated for the services under this Bill, although there has been a general disposition to criticise it as niggardly and mean, was arrived at after a good deal of discussion between the Minister of Health and my own Department, and having regard to the obligations on the Exchequer at present, and to those that may arise, we felt that it war the most that we were at the time prepared to agree to. Hon. Members of this Committee know that it is in accordance with the desire of the House that the Financial Resolutions in connection with Bills in which finance plays a part, should, to-day, be drawn with such strictness that they cannot be upset, as they might be—I am not alluding to this case in particular—by some chance vote either here or in Committee. The drawing of Financial Resolutions, as has been done lately by the Treasury, has been done solely with the view of trying to get as much control as we can over expenditure. With that object I am quite aware that all sides of the Committee are in full sympathy. The position that we are in therefore to-day, is really a very simple one. I can hold out no hope, that if a Motion were carried to report progress, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way—I do not see how he can in the present state of the finances of which he has charge—to sanction any increase in this amount, and it would be trifling with the Committee if I were to hold out the slightest hope that this would be done. Though I have every sympathy with the object of the Bill and with the motive that moved hon. Members who desire to make this increase, I would ask them to reflect on the grave difficulty in which we on this Bench are so often put by most natural conduct of this kind, because it is a very difficult thing to resist the pressure of the House. We do not like doing it, but we feel that it has to be done, and it is rather discouraging sometimes when we have been doing our best to curb expenditure, if the Committee rises and with one voice says, "this or that is something quite exceptional and is such a good cause that it must appeal to everyone and money must be found, and it does not matter whether it is easy for you to find it or not." I think, therefore, the only course for the Committee is to come to a decision this afternoon, and the decision is a very simple one. It is whether they will take this Resolution as it is, and will frame a Bill upon it, or whether they think that the offer in the Bill is one which really is not worth having.

Has the hon. Gentleman exact knowledge of what the proposals which we are proffering to him would cost the State?

4.0 P.M.

I was going to raise that very point. I think we are in some difficulty, because I am very 10th indeed to vote against the Resolution. It is a very serious matter. This is the first Government that has ever brought forward any proposal to assist the blind, and I acknowledge the sympathetic way in which the Minister has always dealt with these subjects, but the trouble is that there is something very degrading about the inquisition into the means. There are great difficulties about the limitations which have been imposed. I have some points given me by a very old friend, Sir Arthur Pearson, with whom I worked at one time in assisting the blind, and his points about the Resolution were these. One is that unless you assist local authorities the permission will never be taken advantage of. That will mean, of course, an increase in the amount of the grant. The second point is that lots of people who are under fifty cannot earn a living and cannot be trained, and the third point is that the amount given, in view of the exceptional expenses that blind people are being put to in being cared for, is inadequate. I am very loath to do anything which might have the result of postponing the Bill. I make two proposals. The first is this. Is it not possible for the Government to let us know, by circulating a Paper on Monday or Tuesday, exactly what will be the cost of doing away with the income test and exactly what would be the cost of other requests which have been made. That would be a White Paper. Then we should know exactly where we were and what we were really proposing. As regards the question of time, so far as I am concerned, and I think I might give a pledge for hon. Members who are associated with me, we should be quite willing to let the Money Resolution go through after 11 o'clock if it was satisfactory. That would not in the least delay the Finance Bill. I make these proposals bonâ fide because I am very anxious not to be forced into the Lobby against the Resolution. I suggest that the Government should report progress or withdraw the Resolution, let us know the cost of the proposals and then, if it is necessary to put them through at some time after opposed business cannot be taken, they will certainly have the hearty co-operation of myself and those whom I can persuade to act with me.

I congratulate the Treasury representatives on the courage they have had in laying before the Committee the effect which this Amendment will have upon the finances of the country. I have not had a long experience of the House, but this is the first occasion I can remember on which representatives of the Treasury have had the courage to oppose any suggestion to the aid of which sentiment could be brought. I remember a short time ago, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a most moving appeal to the House not in any circumstances to make demands for further expenditure, and promising that he would do his best also to oppose them, a demand for further expenditure came up. Not only was it not opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but neither he nor any representative of the Treasury laid before us the effect it would have on the financial position of the country. It has been said that the total cost of giving adequate pensions to all the blind in this country will only be some £500,000. It is not so long ago since Members of the Government assured the country that the cost of old age pensions would, at the most, be £6,000,000 per annum. It is at this moment something between £24,000,000 and £30,000,000. I do not object to it, but with the present finances of the country it is a very serious strain. I know that not only the blind, but the old age pensioners deserve everything they get and more, but it is impossible to, give everyone in this country everything he deserves. Out of the 45,000,000 people in this country at least 40,000,000 deserve more pay, more leisure, more pleasure and more comfort, but the country cannot give it to them. It is an economic impossibility. Therefore I congratulate the representatives of the Treasury on the courage they have had, not so much in opposing this Amendment as in telling us what the position is and the reasons they have for being unable to accede to it.

I am rather surprised at the speech we have just heard. If I had heard my hon. Friend's voice raised against expenditure in Mesopotamia—

I rose several times during that Debate, but was not called, otherwise my colleague would have heard my voice raised in protest against that expenditure.

I am very glad to have elicited that, and I apologise very much, but I thought as my hon. Friend was supporting the Government he would probably have voted with them on that, although I know very well that he voted against scarlet uniforms. That remark applies to the Government, and the speech we have had from the Financial Secretary. He says the Government cannot afford this money. There are a good many other things we cannot afford, but money has been spent. I need not, for instance, go into the expenditure on Russia, where money could have been saved. I object to this Resolution for two reasons, because I believe a pension of 10s. is inadequate and because the age at which the pension starts is too high. The Resolution cannot be left as it is without a proviso that if a blind person under the age of 50 is incapable of earning a living that person shall receive a pension. If such a proviso were inserted my attitude would be very different. Many people go blind between the age of 40 and 45, when, obviously, training is impossible, and they will be unable to earn their living and will be dependent entirely upon charity. We cannot leave the Resolution as it is.

It has been said that we had better take half a loaf, because it is better than no bread, and that we ought to vote for this Resolution, because there is a danger of losing everything. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough were in business and he was going to advise someone who was about to engage in a business transaction, would he advise them to accept every offer they received, without question? If so, he would not make a very profitable business man. If we pass this Resolution as it stands no better provision will be made for the blind for a number of years, possibly for a generation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members are entitled to their own opinion. We have had ample experience of that sort of thing. We know that the Government will be short of money for a great many years to come. There will be heavy taxation, and it will always be difficult to make the revenue balance the expenditure. I am quite certain that if this Resolution is passed no further provision will be made probably for a generation. If we fail to pass this Resolution, or if we induce the Government to withdraw it, which is the attitude they ought to take, what is going to happen? Can anybody suggest that after the expressions of opinion in this House the Government can refuse to do anything for the blind? That is incredible. It is said that there might not be time to do it this Session. The hon. Member (Captain Benn) has said that every facility will be given for passing the financial Resolution after 11 o'clock, without opposition. If the House is of opinion that ample and better provision should be made, and if the Government have the courage of their convictions, I am certain the result will be not that the blind will suffer but that they will gain.

I by no means share the pessimistic view taken by the hon. Member (Major Entwistle) as to the prospects if this Resolution be passed. I would urge, as I have done before, that every- thing possible should be done, and that we have not yet done anything like our duty towards the blind. I have the very greatest sympathy with the general trend of the discussion to-day. I urge this point, which has hardly been urged enough, that with regard to the blind you have a natural definition fixed by nature, which itself marks the confines of your expenditure. But I do think that, as a general question with regard to those who are thus afflicted, we ought to perform our duty up to the very point of those confines marked by nature. Therefore my sympathies are entirely with those who wish that this Resolution had been rather wider. But we are bound to take the matter into businesslike consideration. If we overthrow this Resolution, and as the hon. Member says, we do not think that half a loaf is better than no bread, we know perfectly well what will be the result. I think it is better to take the Bill as it stands and then make it a stepping stone to get something further in a future Session. Look at what this Bill really does. In the main, the points of the Bill are the training, help and assistance that are given to the blind.

I suggest that all those things depend upon the amount of money which is going to be given, and I would refer to the fact that this Financial Resolution also deals with the principle whether you are going to have voluntary aid to the institutions as well.

The Financial Resolution covers solely and simply the question of pensions. The main expense of this Bill is thrown upon the local authorities. My right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench knows as well as I do that an increase in the expenditure of the local authority almost necessarily gives them a claim for considerably larger grants from the Treasury. That is a logical sequence. But the Financial Resolution relates solely to one thing—that is the conditions on which pensions are to be granted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) said that his alone had been a voice crying in the wilderness when the Pensions Bill was under consideration in objecting to the severe conditions. I think that if he will look back at the Debates he will find that I was one of those who insisted that pensions would be much better universally given and not subject to conditions. I have always held that opinion, and I hold it ten times as strongly with regard to the blind. In the case of the blind these conditions, investigations and unpleasant inquiries are almost repulsive. We are doing under this Bill a great deal, and as one incidental part, we are making a considerable change in regard to pensions. We are reducing the age for the blind from 70 to 50. That is going a considerable step forward. Would it not be a very serious thing if in a Bill of this sort—I ask hon. Members to consider this from the point of view of principle—which is to deal with the blind, we touch on a fundamental point of principle with regard to old age pensions all round and abolish the whole question of inquiries and investigations? It would be a very serious thing for us to alter fundamentally the whole principle upon which Parliament has decided that pensions should be based. I would have been glad had the Government been bold enough to make a step forward and remove these investigations in the case of the blind, but I do strongly sympathise with their attitude in saying that in the Bill they do a great deal with regard to pensions, in taking 20 years off the age, and that they are not prepared at one fell swoop to give pensions to all the blind over the age of 50, whatever their needs or however unnecessary those pensions may be. I suggest that we are getting a good deal now. We should be far wiser to take it for what it is rather than delay it. After we have passed the Bill we shall be in a better and stronger position to agitate and to do more for our afflicted brothers and sisters.

I think it was 28 years ago that the Trades Union Congress first dealt with this question. That Congress was held at Newcastle in 1892, and a resolution was passed declaring that the business of protecting the interests of the blind was the duty of the State. For 28 years, I believe, that resolution has been passed regularly at the annual Congress. The demand has not ceased, and the necessity is still with us. Having supported that resolution at every Congress I attended, I should think twice before I did anything in the Division Lobby to prevent the first step being taken in the direction demanded for so many years. I am sure there is not a Member of this House who does not regret the attitude of the Government on this question. When we remember the millions that are squandered on other less desirable and less necessary objects, and then the parsimony with which the Government deal with a subject of such great national importance as this, we must admit that it is an outrage to the House. If one could take a ballot even of the Press—of the Press which is attacking the Government to-day for the way in which they are spending money, an expenditure which is necessitated mostly by the policy those newspapers advocated a few years ago—I do not think that one voice would be raised against doubling or trebling the amount in this Resolution. I am certain that if a ballot of the whole country were taken there would not be a dozen votes given against trebling the amount. Is it not surprising that in regard to a subject on which, probably, the whole nation would be unanimous in voting the money, that subject has been chosen by the Government for making a stand for economy? It is the failure of the Government in appreciating what to spend money on and where not to spend it that causes a great deal of the unrest and agitation in the country to-day. I regret as much as anyone the attitude adopted by the Front Bench on this proposition. I differ from the suggestion of hon. Members, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), whose advice I would take on almost any labour problem, because I fear we would be doing injury to the people who for years I know he has done his best to protect. I can quite quite see, if this Resolution were defeated to-day, it would be an excuse for the Government to do nothing for the rest of this Session, or perhaps, I may say, it might be used as an excuse. Again, there may be some great political or personal question coming up during the next Session, by which State assistance to some 35,000 of our unfortunate fellow-citizens will be obliterated, blurred and lost in the discussion that may ensue. Indeed, as was suggested by one hon. Member, that may go on for several years before we get this subject tackled again. There is not a man here but is disgusted at the attitude of the Front Bench on this question, but at the same time I cannot take upon myself to resist in the Division Lobby the possi- bility of the first step along a road which the State ought to have taken many years ago.

My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel L. Ward) congratulated the Treasury upon the courage which they had displayed in coming down to largely emasculate this Bill. I join in no such congratulations. I admit the courage and I reprobate it, and I think courage was never shown in a worse cause. I wish we could have seen equal courage upon occasions where courage of the same kind was much more demanded. I wish we had seen a little more of humanity now and less of such courage. We are told if we accept the proposals now before the House that that will close the question practically for all time. I cannot agree with that view. The same argument was advanced on the Old Age Pensions Bill when it was first before the House, but a very short period elapsed before it became perfectly clear that the Bill would require drastic improvement and it received that. I am perfectly sure if the same course were taken in respect of this particular Bill the same thing would happen. Are we to refuse to accept the benefit of these proposals for some of the blind, because we cannot get all that we desire for all the blind. I speak with intimate knowledge as to these particular organisations, and I am sure if you put this proposal to the blind people and say that because we cannot get all we are asking for we will not allow those who are to benefit to receive that benefit that such an attitude would be unanimously condemned. It is a grave responsibility for this Committee to contemplate taking a step which will deprive those helpless and suffering beings of a proposal which at one stroke proposes to lower the pension age in their case from 70 years to 50 years. Upon what ground will you deny them that measure of relief? You cannot justify it upon the ground that it does not go all the way you want, but there is good ground, on the other hand, for taking this and telling the Treasury, as we do tell them, that this by no means closes the controversy, that it is rather the opening of a fresh and more intense chapter of it, and that we are resolved, if not now, then at the earliest possible opportunity, to see this thing through. I agree that we are bound to do all we can for the blind, and the most we can do for the most suffering class in this community is not too much. I deeply and bitterly resent the kind of court of inquisition that is to be held into the circumstances of all these blind people. I do not think it is a proper line of conduct to take at all, but much as I regret it, I feel that the indignity of it is tempered by the measure of alleviation which it will bring. I hope the Committee will not permit this Resolution to be talked out and that they will take it to a Division.

I, like my colleagues on these Benches and other hon. Members, want to express my regret that this question is being dealt with in such a parsimonious manner. We have no right to economise at the expense of the blind. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that this was the beginning of a great and human reform, and he referred to the Old Age Pensions Act, but the age limit which was fixed in that Act met the resentment of the whole community 12 years ago, and the Government have not yet seen their way clear to carry out the human requirement as far as the age is concerned. Here the same policy is to be continued in regard to the blind, who are to be subjected to humiliation and indignities in the way of enquiries. We believe there is abundance of wealth that can be obtained for the country willingly, without raising any protest on the ground of economy, in order to give an adequate allowance to the blind. The Government's proposal is most niggardly, for the blind will still have to be assisted, and a huge liability will still be left on the local authorities. I have a letter from a local authority, requesting that we make some effort to release them from the liabilities imposed upon them. Here we get the Government, with its pledges, bringing in a measure that will still leave a large section of the blind destitute, and subject to dependence upon their friends.

I know from experience of my blind friends how they feel. A person at 30 is equally as dependent as a person at 50, and I hope the Government is not going to be so callous as to let this go through without reconsideration. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggests that all these things add to the national cost when we are appealed to by the country to effect economies. We could have effected economies in the Estimates, if need be. We have a huge list of half-pay officers getting three times the amount that is going to be given to the blind. I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will take a bold step, so that all the blind persons will be assured, without the assistance of their friends, of being able to end their days in peace and comfort. I have a friend, a blind person, 40 years of age, who is destitute. Her parents made sacrifices to get her educated, and, realising her responsibilities, she pored over the books that she might get through her examinations, with the result that she went blind. Now she finds that she has got to be dependant, which is the most humiliating thing to her, on her brothers and sisters for maintenance. She has asked me, seeing that her brothers and sisters have family financial responsibilities, whether she should go to the workhouse. The woman has sensibility, but she is going to be left out of this Bill. I hope we shall not continue to be subject to the jeers, ridicule and contempt which we receive for our parsimonious treatment of the blind, while we can spend huge sums in Mesopotamia, in Russia, and in Ireland.

Hear, hear!

I cannot understand that interjection, because we are squandering millions of money which will bring no advantage to our own people, while we have a starving blind population for whom we can only find £220,000. To my mind my hon. Friend could respond to a more noble sentiment than that evidenced by his "Hear, hear."

We have had many eloquent speeches made on this Resolution, but I do not join some of my hon. Friends about Russia, Mesopotamia, and so on, for I do not quite agree with them on these subjects. It may be for the welfare of the country, and, indeed, for civilisation, that we should spend money both in Mesopotamia and Russia. I do, however, beg the Government to withdraw from a most disappointing position. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Glasgow, dealt with one of the most important points of this subject; this only deals with pensions. What we who are interested in the blind have hoped to see was a Bill brought in dealing with their training and education. Pensions are very important, but training and education seem to me to be only giving the blind people Justice. An hon. Gentleman said that you could not give everybody in the world all they deserve. I agree. None of us ever get what we think we deserve. We must go through life disappointed in some things. But we can at least give the blind people justice. It is for 6s. that we are appealing to-day.

Another point is that the care of these blind people generally comes on the very poorest of the community—some hon. Members would say the weakest part of the community—that is the women. But, after all, it is the women in the home who always have to look after the blind. It is for them I am pleading. If we pass this Resolution it affects only 8,400 blind people out of over 35,000. It in no way deals with training and education, and fitting of these folk, not for charity—a word I hate, especially in this connection—but to earn their own livelihood. That is where I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Mr. G. Barnes, that it is very important that the Government should bring in a Bill which does not leave this matter permissible to the local authorities. After all, the Government know pretty well by housing that if you leave things entirely to the local authorities very often you get let down. We really do not want the blind left to the local authorities when it comes to the matter of training and education. We who are very keen about the matter will be glad to see the Resolution made different. I think it will be awfully unfair on the part of the Government to pass this Measure, because it puts us in an awkward position. We do not want to turn down this Resolution. It is true it is half a loaf. It may be said that better half a loaf than no bread. I am not at all certain, though, that if we do vote against the Government we shall not possibly get something better. There is no doubt there is throughout the country a great feeling for the blind, and on this matter I think most Members of the House are agreed. We have laden—in fact, we have depressed—them with our sympathy. What we want now to do is to put the thing in such a position that the Government will withdraw this, and bring in on Monday, say, another Resolution, and give us a chance. The present position is hardly fair to the House, and I am not at all sure it is fair to the country.

I am sure the Government wants to do what is right. I know they want to do what is popular in the country. There is nothing that would be more popular in the country than for people to see that we are really voting for a Measure of this kind. I do not agree with them about Government officials. Government officials are very necessary, and we can well afford to vote for large administrative things. I do once more beg the Government to withdraw this Resolution, and to give us a chance. We want to do what is right to the blind. We have spoken with eloquence, and we could go on for hours; but we do not want to be slushy about it; we just want justice. We are not speaking in the interests of our constituents, because many of us have very few blind in our constituencies; we speak with full hearts and with absolute conviction that on the whole it would pay not only the Government but also the country to look after the blind and to give every one of them a chance of education and of training. Some of them are really brilliant, though they sit in darkness and have no chance except through the reading of these Braille books, which, after all, are the result of voluntary effort in the beginning. We want to give them a chance of education, and, if need be, of going through college. I do not want to talk out the Bill.

That is a matter for discussion on the Bill; we are now only dealing with the finance, and not with the provisions of the Bill.