I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 to 12 inclusive.

The object of the Amendment is to raise the whole question why the granting of a pension to the widow of a man of 60 is refused. If a man reaches the age of 60 and he had married after 29th April of this year, except in certain cases, his widow is not entitled to receive a pension. There are exceptions. If there are children the widow would be entitled to a pension; and if the marriage lasts for five years she would be entitled to a pension. If the lady before her marriage had been a widow and had been receiving a pension, then she would be allowed to have it again on the death of the second husband. But the point is that if a man of 60 has been married since 29th April, his widow is not entitled to pension. Why is this limitation put into the Bill at all? In insurance, one naturally recognises that there are bad and good lives; that those who are paying are paying for certain things, while those responsible for providing the benefits have to take the bad with the good. If this man of 60 has been paying contributions—even though it may have been only for a short time—why should not his widow be allowed to receive the pension? I agree that the period of the man's contributions may be short, but when a scheme of this kind is being started, there are many people who gain great advantages, though they may have made only small payments, and it is difficult to see why an exception should be made in these particular cases.

I can only think that the Minister is afraid that some kind of abuse may take place, and that a woman who is anxious to obtain a pension may, for example, influence some man who is only likely to live for a short time, and a marriage may take place, with the result that a pension may be imposed on the country. One must bear in mind that at present men with private property are liable to exactly the same sort of thing, and I cannot see how the Government are going to guard against anything of that kind. It is interesting to note the table in the actuary's report which sets out the ages of the wives of men of this age. According to that table, only 10 per cent. of the wives of men of 60 are themselves under the age of the husband. Therefore I cannot imagine that the Minister thinks he is dealing with any abuse which is manifest at the present time. It is evident he thinks that some form of abuse may spring up. That, for instance, a nurse who has care of an invalid may go through a form of marriage with her patient simply in order to get the pension. The number of cases of that kind likely to occur seems to be so small, and the responsibility of the man is so great, that I think it is hardly worth the Government's while to put in a provision of this kind which only adds to the difficulties and uncertainties of the Measure. It will cause dissatisfaction, because, in most cases, the widow of a man who had been paying his contributions will be unaware that she is disentitled by this provision, until she comes to apply for the pension after the death of her husband. The only other reason for the provision which I can suggest is that the Minister considers that if a man marries at 60 it is a sign of failing mental powers, and that this Clause is a reflection upon anyone who does such a thing. I should have thought, however, that, allowing for the bad risks which one must take in insurance as well as the good, these lines might have been excluded from the Bill.

In order to save the Amendment, which stands next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) —in Clause 3, page 3, line 2, to leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy"—I shall put this Amendment in the following form: In Clause 3, page 3, lines I and 2, to leave out from the word "Provided" in line 1 to the word "sixty" in line 2.

I support the Amendment. It is a great pity that this Bill is being burdened by a number of ridiculous restrictions, and that the widow of a man, who has probably contributed during the whole of his life, because he dares to marry at or over the age of co, should, with certain exceptions, be denied the benefits for which the man has paid. This Bill, as I say, is burdened by a number of embarrassing restrictions, and the average man in the street will find it impossible to know exactly for what he is paying contributions. I trust the Committee will realise that this matter affects a large number of people, and if we are to have these pettifogging restrictions, the ordinary man will not understand the scheme for which he is called upon to pay. I hope the Attorney-General, who is, I under- stand, to reply, will state in specific terms the grounds upon which this provision has been incorporated in the Bill.

I shall do my best to comply with the reasonable request which has just been made. The answer has been anticipated in the first of the two alternatives suggested by the Mover of the Amendment. This provision has been put in, not because the Minister intends to cast any reflection upon the mental powers of gentlemen of 60 who get married, but, as the hon. Member suspected, in order to guard against cases of abuse. The sort of case which the Government have in mind is this. There might be somebody over 60 years of age who desired, at the expense of the State, to provide for some young lady in whom he was interested, or who, on the other hand, might be induced by some young woman who was taking care of him, to provide for her by going through what is sometimes called a death-bed marriage, with the result that she would get 10s. a week for the rest of her life, and the State would be burdened with that liability. These restrictions have been described as ridiculous. That is the point which the Committee have to decide. If they be ridiculous, then naturally the Committee ought not to adopt them. If, on the other hand, as we hope to convince the Committee, they are proper and feasible, I hope the Committee will pass them into-law.

I would like the Committee to realise exactly what the provisions are. One does not wish any hon. Member to go away with the idea that the bulk of the people who marry at a mature age are, by reason of this restriction, unable to provide for the widows whom they may leave behind. In the first place, if there are any children of the marriage, quite-regardless of whether the children are alive when the man dies or not—if the marriage is fruitful at all—then automatically that removes the marriage from the area of the restriction, and entitles the widow to the pension. Obviously a marriage of that kind is a marriage in the full sense of the term, and in such cases the Government would not think it right that there should be any restriction, even though it might happen that the man died within a very short time after the marriage. Secondly, there is the case where for a substantial time after the marriage—five years or more is the term suggested in the Clause—man and wife have lived together. Obviously these are cases to which the death-bed marriage theory could not apply. There is yet another class of case in regard to which there is no restriction. Those are cases where the husband dies quite soon after the marriage, it may be within a few days of the marriage, but where the lady herself was in receipt of a widow's pension immediately before the marriage. The reason why we brought in that third class is that, obviously, there could not be in such cases an instance of the abuse against which we desire to guard, because there would be no inducement to go through a second marriage for this purpose in the case of a lady already in receipt of a pension.

These provisions will safeguard what one may call cases of genuine marriage in the ordinary sense of the term and we hope they will be sufficient to achieve that purpose. We feel that it is necessary, in embarking upon a scheme of insurance of this character, to avoid cases of abuse which otherwise would certainly be liable to happen at the volition of the proposed widow or the proposed testator, if they could at their will, when the man was on the eve of death, provide a life long pension largely at the national expense by a ceremony of marriage, not intended to be anything more than a mockery of real marriage. We feel that was not the intention of this Bill, and that is not the sort of case which this Bill is designed to alleviate and to help. There is no argument for such a case, and therefore we are anxious to have a Clause which will protect the State against abuses of that kind, but we are also anxious to see that such protection does not operate harshly against anyone whose marriage has been a genuine and real union in the ordinary sense of the term.

Why should the retrospective date be put in?

Would the Attorney-General's argument not apply to men of any age as well as to men of 60 or over?

8.0 P.M.

I should like to explain how the alliance has taken place by which I find myself supporting hon. Members opposite in this matter. I do it from a point of view which is the opposite to that expressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). I wish to increase the restriction in the cases of those who do not require these pensions, and therefore I propose to remove the restriction from Clause 3, and put it into Clause 5. That is in substitution for the other Amendment of a graded scale that appears under my name. I do it at the instance of the body who more represent coordinated women's opinion on this subject than any other. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) suggested that this idea was trifling and negligible, and that there was no object in having safeguards against such abuses. I do not know what ladies they have consulted, but, surely, above all things, we ought to consult the bodies who represent women. The body who fought for the women's vote, and has since been formed into the National Union for Equal Citizenship, has recently issued a memorandum which is straight and to the point. It endorses every word the Attorney-General has said, only more so. There is a paragraph in the memorandum with the ominous heading, "To Prevent Husband Hunting." The paragraph says: Matrimonial agencies will keep a sharp eye on men discharged from sanatoria or cancer hospitals. The nursing profession which has been complaining of its lack of recruits, may find itself confronted with a new class of entrants of the most undesirable quality. And they give definite instances of formal marriages taking place in order to secure the supposed benefits under this Bill. You cannot get a stronger argument.

Are these taking place now?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

I was asked if there were any actual cases going on in anticipation of this Bill. Here is an actual instance. One member informed me she knew of a woman who, only last week, married a man suffering from cancer with the well-understood purpose of qualifying for pension under the Bill. I think if hon. Members opposite have had anything like the experience of the other sex which I have had, which I think is quite possible, they will know of many instances in which marriages have taken place for some similar avowed purpose, and, certainly, those of us who know the way in which the nursing profession is used so often by miscreants of the other sex, who masquerade in the noblest of all the women's professions, know perfectly well there are cases frequently happening where the uniform is used in order to get into the intimacies of sick patients at the worst time. These are just the kind of cases where you may get marriages which will qualify for the pension, possibly for 50 or 60 years under this Bill, unless this proviso be inserted. I would only ask hon. Members to recall what happened during the War, and they will remember instances again and again of the same thing happening with young soldiers going out to the front. Most of the marriages were honourable in the highest degree, but, occasionally, very much to the contrary.

I only rose to ask this point of the Minister. If they make an exception for a man who marries at the age of 60, why not make it for a man who marries at 59? Those at the age of 53 or thereabouts are equally susceptible, and equally liable to be caught if required for the same purpose. The proviso which the Government have put in is limited to gentlemen of 60 and upwards. Why not protect gentlemen of an earlier age? The National Union for Equal Citizenship are keen, especially about the young designing husband-hunter, who, these ladies say, are a real danger and menace to our sex. We are at the mercy of the other sex, and if the other sex recognises it, we are bound to take serious note of this danger. Therefore, I suggest that this proviso be transferred to Clause 5 with one or two slight Amendments, which we could consider when we came to it, and that, therefore, this is not necessary to Clause 3. The limitation in Clause 33 being confined to men who marry over the age of 60, I propose to leave it out of this place, but only to endorse the view of the Government and to strengthen it, and. make it applicable to poor, unprotected members of the male sex.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General where the abuse comes in, because, so far as I understand it, this is. a contract between several parties to provide a pension under certain conditions. Now if this Bill passes into law, it is conceivable that a man might have been paying for a widow's pension for 40 years. Let us assume that a man has been paying 40 years, and he has lived through that period a bachelor, but when 60, he decides to marry. Let us assume for a moment that it is some designing female who is trying to captivate him, and let us imagine that she succeeds. If she does, I submit to the Attorney-General that his description with regard to the pension is absolutely wrong. He said by doing this or that she will obtain a pension provided by the State. I challenge that. She will succeed in getting a pension for which the man himself has contracted and paid for. The State has made a certain contribution, but it has not made the whole of the contribution. The contribution will be jointly made by the man, by the employer and by the State, and, in so far as the man has contracted for that object, he has a perfect right, without any interference from the State, at 60 years of age to get married, and if he does, and dies after 60, within five years or any period, the widow is perfectly justified in demanding that a pension shall be paid to her, because her husband had contracted for it.

In the proviso there are other conditions, but for the life of me I cannot understand why there is a differentiation of nine months and five years. Can the Attorney-General tell us why that differentiation is made? It is conceivable that a man may, at 60 years of age, marry a young woman of 30, and at the end of nine months a child may be born. Immediately afterwards he may die, but because a child has been born within that period the woman is entitled to the pension, notwithstanding the fact that the child dies. But if there has been no child, then the duration is to be one of five years? Can he tell us why there is this distinction? Because we cannot really understand the sense, the logic or the reason of the discrimination. Whatever the Attorney-General may say, we stand by this fact, that, apart from any benefits that may be derived under this Bill, the man himself has a legitimate right, and if he does marry even a designing young woman, she should have the right of the pension, because he himself has paid for it.

I do not profess to have much knowledge of the circumstances of this case, and I do not intend to make a speech. I simply want to remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that this is supposed to be a serious Legislative assembly, and not a comic opera.

I will endeavour to take part in whichever my hon. Friend thinks the Assembly is. Yesterday, the Committee will remember, we devoted a great deal of time to the discussion of a proposition to admit certain privileges to a class of women that would be paying, or their husbands would be paying, into the Insurance Fund. Either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health defended their action in not allowing the woman to participate, on the score that her payments had nothing to do with the provision for a pension, but that the man's did, and that the man's payments were for a pension. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why to-day he should argue that what a man has paid for, he should not have the power to do with it what he pleases. If the man possesses property, there is nothing in the law of Britain to prevent his marrying this designing female, about whom we hear so much, and leaving the whole of his property to her. No one can interfere with it at all, except some relatives who may brief very clever lawyers and employ very clever doctors to prove that the man was mentally unsound. Except for that, there is no power in British law to prevent a man doing what he likes with his own property I maintain that in this case the man would only be handing on something which is his to hand on. You have compelled Mm to pay in to the fund—that is not a voluntary business at all—and he has the right to deal with this matter, in my view, in whatever way he chooses, and you have no right to try to save money for the fund by imposing a restriction of this kind. Always, when there is an injustice going to be done, especially to helpless people, their morals are called in question. In this instance we have had a picture painted by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), to whom one gives way on matters of medicine, and surgery, and hygiene, and we have had a homily from him on the iniquity of certain women, who, during the War, did this, that, and the other, and who, to-day, abuse a very noble profession. Well, you do not get rid of that kind of thing by this kind of legislation. I think this is the worst possible method of trying to get rid of anything that is vicious or anything that is bad. I do not believe that there is a young woman who would dream of doing the sort of things that the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about, merely for this paltry pittance of 10s. a week. I can quite understand that in the circles that he moves amongst, and I can quite understand that in the circles that hon. and right hon. Members all round here mix in, what is called high society, there is a proportion of people where there are huge properties and large sums of money at stake, and I admit right away that that does make an appeal to their cupidity, but I am speaking from my own experience of working people.

May I correct the hon. Member? He said I was speaking from my experience. May I remind him that I was speaking from the experience of the National Union for Equal Citizenship, of women of all classes, representing women, and this is the letter from one of the chief social workers at the present time in this body, who says: No one thought it any hardship to cut out childless women who had been married less than five years, and nearly everyone was agreed that the sordid marriage danger was a very real one.

I am very sorry for those well-meaning, but very stupid, ladies who gather themselves together and pass such an idiotic resolution. It is sordid marriages that you are talking about. It is a matter of 10s. a week, and whether it is the hon. and gallant Member who is making the statement or a number of amiable and well-meaning, ladies who do not know what they are talking about, I do not mind. I have had to do with ladies and gentlemen who are always investigatting the poor for the poor's good, and I would improve them off the face of the earth. I think it would be a very good day when the poor organised a charity organisation society to go and investigate how the poor rich live, and how they behave, and what they do with their money.

I would invite the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.

The argument that has been put up by the Attorney-General and by the hon. and gallant Member of the medical profession opposite is that they must have this proviso in order to prevent poor women inveigling old gentlemen of my age—or, I should not say old gentlemen, but old men, of my age—to marry them, in order that they may choke them off and then get 10s. a week. I want to say that I, too, have had rather a lengthy experience of men and women.

Viscountess ASTOR:

So have I.

The Noble Lady has, too, but not quite so long as me yet, and that experience teaches me that you are legislating for an evil which is almost non-existent amongst the working people, and you have no business to insult them by putting in this sort of proviso. It is for that reason that I got up, and I want to say, about the whole of this business of trying to legislate in order to take care of the morals of the working class, that they do not need taking care of.

Viscountess ASTOR:

rose—

The Noble Lady is much too eager to interrupt.

Viscountess ASTOR:

You are much too eager to condemn.

I am much too eager to take notice of the Noble Lady, because I want to hear what she says, but the Noble Lady continually tells us that life is a matter of the spirit and not of the body. Very well, then, do not bother about laws for the poor. They do not want your laws, and they will live as decent and moral lives as others at the other end of London.

Viscountess ASTOR:

Hear, hear!

I think we are going beyond the point.

Viscountess ASTOR:

rose—

Does the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley give way?

Certainly, to a lady.

Viscountess ASTOR:

I really think the hon. Member opposite is constantly talking as though we were trying to legislate for the poor. We are in this House of Commons to legislate for everybody. We do not divide people up into classes, but you, who are supposed to know so much about Christianity, are always doing it, and I resent this dividing up into classes.

I would point out to both hon. Members that a general disquisition about ethics is rather remote from the question before the Committee.

But the whole of this is a question of ethics. The whole argument has been on the question of ethics, that the woman, designing, weak—

There appears to be a tendency to indulge in a discussion on comparative morality.

My point was this, and I will, with your permission, Mr. Hope, make it quite quickly. It is that there is no law at present, and I have not heard of anyone bringing in a Bill, to deal with the well-to-do courtesan of the upper classes who is able to carry on in exactly the same manner as the hon. Gentleman opposite depicted, and who is able to get huge sums of money and property out of the people she victimises. If this were a Bill to prevent any woman of any class doing the thing you are proposing to do with the working class, I would not say a word about it. This legislation is all class legislation. It is nothing else than class legislation, and the reason why I got up to speak was because of what I considered to be the iniquitous speech of the Attorney-General and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him. I stand here to say that the women of the working class and the men of the working class do not need such legislation as is involved in this Clause, and I hope very much that every Member on this side will not only vote, but will speak against it as an insult to the working people of the country.

Mr. BECKETT:

May I add one word of very serious protest against the purpose of the part of the Clause which we are endeavouring to get removed? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) rather aroused your ire, Mr. Hope, by discussing the ethics and morals of different classes of the community in reference to this Bill.

The hon. Member did not rouse my ire, but possibly some hon. Members might affront my sense of relevance.

Mr. BECKETT:

I accept the correction, Mr. Hope, and I am sorry I misinterpreted your feelings, but it is very important in all these Bills that there should be a much greater care taken not to discriminate, not to think about one section of the people of this country as people who must be legislated for, and of another section of the people of this country as people who are quite well able to look after themselves. I am sure that most Members on this side of the House quite appreciate the desire, if we sometimes deplore the method of expression of it, of hon. Members on the other side to improve the standard of public morality. We do, however, suggest that a much better way of doing that is by precept and example, not by passing Bills. I do not feel that the Bill we are discussing at the moment is one of setting up a particularly high standard of public morality. I should describe it, if I might, without offence as a Bill which does good by stealths—with the accent on the last word. It takes money from the unemployed at the present—

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is as to leaving out a certain part of Sub-section (1) of the Clause. The question of the morality of the Bill will come better on the Third Reading.

Mr. BECKETT:

I am sorry that I allowed myself to get away from the point that I wanted to make—that of combating the suggestion of dealing in the manner put forward with a very limited class of people. It is quite impossible to do that by means of legislation. Such legislation is merely calculated to arouse the very things mentioned, and which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee are endeavouring to meet. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was asking the Government if they would accept this Amendment because I think, according to the statements we have already heard from the Government side of the House, there is no very big financial question involved. Earlier in the discussion I produced an Amendment which I think had some reference to this subject, and we were told that as it was an insurance business, in which a certain part of the people by paying certain money could qualify, it was impossible to avoid hardship in certain cases of women quoted by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health admitted were hardships; but this, he said, was quite unavoidable. In the same way, if you are willing, for the sake of retaining the purely business side—with which we on this side are not so much impressed —but which is continually emphasised from the Government Front Bench, then surely, if you are not going to ease this business point for the sake of what the Government spokesman admits are real hardships, it is rather contradictory to put a Clause into the Bill dealing purely with insurance which people are going to pay for themselves, and the payment for which is to be taken from them in every way in which it can be thought of! It is rather peculiar for the Government to jib so suddenly at the Amendment. I hope the Government will not press their opposition to this Amendment. It will not cost them much money, and it would be a generous act and be an example which will be much better than the preaching that is consantly given by hon. and right hon. Members on the other side.

I rise for the purpose of making one or two observations. The first is with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), which, I hope, I have misunderstood, and, secondly, I wish to speak on the proposal in the Bill. As I understood the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member in his speech, it was to the effect that in his experience many ladies used the garb of the nursing profession for purposes of prostitution.

No! I was supporting the Amendment of hon. Members opposite. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests did not enter into my mind for a moment. All I said and meant was that the nurse's uniform sometimes was used by women for purposes other than that of nursing.

I do not want to labour the point, but it was worth getting that out from the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the interests of an honourable profession. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have been turning over in his mind was the question of marriage; but not all nurses wish to capture simple old men for the purpose of getting a pension.

Excuse me. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I put the matter in reference to prostitution. I neither thought nor said the thing, but I do say it is possible for women to be employed as guardians, housekeepers, and so on and so work for their own ends.

It is not my experience that nurses go into domestic concerns in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was rather thinking, I am quite sure, of the nursing profession when he spoke about the garb of nurses, at any rate perhaps he will allow me to say this: Having had 12 years' experience of local authorities and been a member of health committees, and acting for several years as chairman of a hospital committee, I was associated with the profession of nursing and with the nurses employed by large local authorities, and I have never in my experience come across a case where a nurse was suspected of having used her profession for anything but legitimate purposes.

In regard to the provisions of the Bill I think they are worthy of observation from another point of view. So far as I know—I have not the knowledge of the law professed by the Attorney-General— this is the first statutory matrimonial limitation to be arranged for the working classes or any other class in this country. It is thus a departure in policy of a very important character. It is a policy that may be extended. I think this provision of the Bill may be rightly regarded as a great triumph for those energetic people who are promoting birth control in this country. I can foresee the future when the insured section of this country, that is the working classes, numbering probably two-thirds of the entire population, will, in order to suit the industrial requirements of insurance, require to get a permit to enter into matrimony.

The Sub-section we are discussing is as to whether the widow of a man who has attained the age of 60 at the date of marriage and so on, shall or shall not be entitled to a widow's pension. The matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman cannot be raised on the question before the Committee. The point that is before the Committee is a very small one.

I am sorry that you do not see the implication of this provision, but it is quite clear that the marriages contemplated are not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, marriages made in heaven. Quite clearly the Conservative party have got away from that old Christian view, and are down to the hard business of running this world on cruel, unadulterated, materialistic principles. I want to draw attention to one of the modifying sections of the Clause to which the Attorney-General drew attention. He said: "Oh, but we have taken all reasonable steps to limit its application. If a child should be born, even though it did not live"—perhaps the wicked people might be capable of pretending a child had been born—"then the marriage will be legalised for the purposes of this Act, and it will be recognised in Heaven as being a sacred ceremony." I do not want to follow up all the possibilities that arise, but I do submit that it is an unfair physical test to apply to a gentleman of 65 years of age who wants to provide for his widow. There are many other objections that could be raised to this proposal. I submit that it is a dangerous departure in legislation which is not warranted by the facts of the situation, and I appeal to the Government not to oppose the Amendment.

After listening to part of this discussion, I feel it is about time somebody took up the cudgels on behalf of the gentleman, aged 60. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government and their supporters in regarding it as something beyond all nature and quite horrible that a woman should want to marry a man at the age of 60. I want the right hon. Gentleman, representing the Government, to look at his colleagues in the Government. There are there a number of gentlemen well over the prescribed age, such as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Balfour, who is very well over that age. Would it be suggested that if a society lady honoured those gentlemen by marrying them—those of them who are not married already, that is—when they had reached this age that, therefore, she had committed some crime which put her outside the pale? If that is not the case with wealthy women and women of society and the elderly and charming colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why it should be considered a crime, resulting in a very severe fine, if a working woman marries a man aged 60 or over? Why should it be assumed that she is marrying him, not because she wants to but for the ulterior purpose of sitting at his breakfast table or by his bedside, hoping against hope that he will shortly shuffle off this mortal coil and leave her, not with the money that he is able to provide, but with this magnificent pension of 10s. a week. The whole idea is perfectly ridiculous. We have heard of ladies in the upper classes marrying men for their fortunes, or vice versa, but surely Members are not going to suggest that 10s. a week is a fortune. I ask the Minister of Health, who has supplied us with a great deal of very useful information, to add to it a little of the saving sense of humour if it is possible to have a sense of humour in a Parliamentary Bill. A man at 60 is considered perfectly capable of taking charge of the affairs of this country, of being an ornament to the Government, or of being an ornament to literary, philosophical, scientific, or other circles. Many a man has begun a parliamentary career at 60. After having had an honourable career in trade or commerce he has come into this House at 60 in order to take up a new career, and he has been regarded as one of the promising younger men of Parliament. The one thing this unfortunate man of 60 must not do is to contemplate asking a woman to share his glories with him—at least, it is perfectly all right to do that when he is an ornament to this House, but he must not do it, apparently, if he is a working man, though, quite likely, he has been a widower for a number of years, has a house and furniture, and his children, grown up, have married and have left home. That a man in those circumstances, not wishing to be lonely, takes to himself a wife, seems to me a perfectly normal and an admirable proceeding. For the life of me I cannot see why a man who has thus provided himself with a wife should be penalised after he has paid into this insurance scheme for, perhaps, 46 years. He may have started at the age of 16, and, if so, by the time he reaches 60 he will have paid in for 46 years. During all that time he has been creating for himself a tremendous reserve in insurance, but because he marries at 60 he is to be told that all his payments are to be lost and that his wife, who may after all not be the designing young thing that the right hon. Gentleman envisages, but may be a woman of 55 or 56, is not to get the pension. His wife may be one of those women for whom I have been pleading all this afternoon. She may be a woman who herself started in insurance at 16 has been paying in for years and would, normally, get her pension when she came to 65; but she has fallen out of employment, say, at the age of 55; and when an honourable home and an honourable position are offered to her by a man of 60 not only does he lose all that he has paid in for 46 years but she is to lose all the payments she has paid in for 40 years. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman on this point because it is an unconscionable thing, and it is an injustice to which we have repeatedly drawn attention. I do not regard this as a joke. I mean it very seriously, and I think in putting so ridiculously a low age as 60 the Minister of Health renders himself liable to be called over the coals very strongly, and I feel sure that the independent working men of Birmingham will want to know why they should have this slur upon them because they have reached 60 years of age, whilst at 59 years and 11 months a man can make any contract in marriage which he likes, and take his bride to the altar knowing everything will be all right if anything happens to him. I suggest that it would be very much in the interests of the community if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 121.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'sixty' in page 3, line 2, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 118.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

That is not a Motion I can accept under the circumstances.

On a point of Order. On the two last Amendments Ministers have simply refused to answer questions. On the Amendment before the last a perfectly simple question was asked in a most respectful manner of the Attorney-General, and he answered it by moving the Closure. On the last occasion we had a two-minute speech from the Attorney-General. We know they are as tired as we are. [Interruption.] All right, they are not tired. I must say something else.

Is the hon. Member putting me a point of Order?

The point of Order is, Ought we not under these circumstances to be allowed to move to report Progress, in order to show our disgust with the manner in which we are treated?

Considering all the circumstances of the occasion, my answer is in the negative

Mr. BECKETT:

Has the Committee no remedy when a Minister refuses to deal with the Debate and turns it into an automatic penny-in-the-slot procedure?

I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the word "sixty" and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy."

The last vote has, of course, disposed of the proposal to omit altogether the restrictions contained in the first part of the Clause. My Amendment is a very narrow one which might well be adopted as a compromise between the very sweeping restrictions imposed in the Clause and the proposal which has just been rejected. It simply proposes to substitute 70 for 60 years as the age at which what the Attorney-General calls death-bed marriages may be presumed. I am hopeful that since the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are here we shall receive some consideration for the Amendment and shall not simply be met by a Closure Motion, as tends to be the procedure when the Attorney-General is left in charge of the business. The age at which a death-bed marriage, as it has been called, can be presumed is a very material point in the whole argument, and I should like to draw attention to another feature in connection with the Bill and the Actuaries' Report on which it is based, namely, the increasing span of life which we may now look forward to and the very large increase which is anticipated in the old age pension charge in future, which of course indicates, among other things, that the age of human life is increasing. As a result of the many developments in medical science and in other directions we can now look forward to living to a considerably greater age than our grandfathers were able to do, and also to retaining our mental and bodily vigour to a greater age than was previously to he hoped for, and so far as that is so it is reasonable to suggest that the date at which it is proposed to impose this restriction should be increased.

In these days 60 is altogether too early an age at which to attribute improper motives to those who marry persons of that age. There are, of course, two possibilities in the case. There is the case of the so-called young woman who marries an elderly man, and the case of the comparatively elderly woman. With regard to the young woman, many cases must be known to us in our own experience where such a marriage is due not at all to reprehensible motives, but to kindly relations having developed because a young woman has nursed an elderly man and desires to comfort his declining years, and it seems to me that women who in that way offer themselves upon the altar of a sense of duty should not be debarred from any small benefits which are in any case attainable on the death of their husbands. It might be argued that they should rather be rewarded for gallantry and public spirit than penalised for any improper conduct. In the case of the elderly woman, roughly of the same age as the man, there, it may be presumed, in the majority of cases, that the marriage takes-place in the ordinary course of natura1 affection, and where there is no great gap of years between the two parties there is all the less reason to suppose that the motives of the woman are reprehensible, in addition to which, of course, as was argued on the last Amendment, and since my hon. Friends and myself have been conducting the Debate without any undue repetition but simply with a desire to bring fresh points of view before Ministers—

The hon. Member now is resuming the Debate on the general question. He makes the most apposite remarks about the prolongation of human life, and, so far, his remarks are in order, but it seems now that he is diverging into generalisation.

I simply wish to recall this general argument, that these men, whose widows it is proposed should not receive pensions, after all have paid for the benefits which in the ordinary course of nature their widows would receive on their death. That argument is just as applicable to this narrower Amendment as it was to the wider Amendment. I do not develop it in detail, but I bring it once more to the notice of the Minister of Health as a consideration in favour of the Amendment. The Committee, having rejected the wider proposal, it appears to me that this Amendment would affect a comparatively small number of persons, that its cost would be comparatively small, but that it would do something to remove a feature of the Bill which is a stigma upon certain sections of the community, and I feel that the Minister, without adding anything appreciable to the cost of the Bill, might well consent to accept it as a compromise between the view which has been put from these benches and that which has been put from the opposite side.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The new point the hon. Member has put forward in support of his argument is that the span of human life has so much increased that it is reasonable to raise the limit of age from 60 to 70 years. Of course, we have drafted the Bill in the light of such information as we have about the present expectation of life, but by paragraph (b), at the date of the death of the husband, if five years have elapsed since the date of the marriage, the widow would be entitled to Her pension, so that the argument that the man is likely to live longer than we think is really an additional safeguard for the widow under that paragraph. We are not attributing motives to anyone. I simply want to put before the Committee what might happen without suggesting any motive on the part of anyone. It is true the hon. Member illustrated his case by suggesting that you might have a man who was infirm and had been nursed by a young woman who sacrificed something of her own comfort and leisure to look after him. It seems to me it is quite possible that the man in these circumstances might desire to show his gratitude to the young woman by marrying her and thereby giving her a chance of succeeding to a pension for life and an earlier old age pension at the age of 65. It is unreasonable to suggest that the man who has already been in enjoyment of an old age pension for upwards of five years should be put in such a position that he could put this additional burden upon the scheme. The hon. Member thinks it would not cost a lot of money. It would be impossible to say how much money it would cost, because nobody can tell how many of these marriages may take place. It is quite fair to say that the inducement to show gratitude or affection, or anything else you like, to a young woman might be very strong in the case of an old man, but in that case it would almost inevitably provoke scandals which would throw discredit upon the whole scheme. I feel that we must not have scandals of that kind arising. I think the proposition in the Bill is a very reasonable one and one which ought to be accepted by the Committee.

There are plenty of people who tell us how we can prolong life by various medicinal and other methods, but we are now told that at 60 a man is finished. That is practically the result of the proposition made by the Government. The Amendment simply asks that, as far as the workers who are coming under this Bill are concerned, at 60 years of age they shall have the same right as other sections of the community, because they have paid up to an age when they are qualified under the Act for all the benefits which they are likely to receive. Most of them will pay for what they will never receive. We are asking that the age of 70, the biblical terms of three score years and ten, should be recognised by this Government of God-fearing Christian gentlemen. There are Members of this House, ex-Cabinet Ministers, who get married at 75 and hand their pensions over to their widows when they have finished. What is good enough for the ex-Cabinet Minister is not good enough for the ex-cabinet maker.

We ask that a man shall have the right of handing on to his wife the legal rights to qualify either at 65 or at 60. There is no argument against that, except expense. How much is it going to cost? The Minister of Health does not suggest anything. All he suggests in the latter part of his speech is that, as far as the workers are concerned, they are as a rule not so moral as the section of the community to which he belongs, because they are going to get married for convenience and for the sake of 10s. a week. I only wish the worker was clever enough to be able to do that as successfully as the people on the opposite side. We are only asking that the age shall be recognised at 60 because most workers finish at 60. They are too old to work at 45 as a rule, and too young for a pension at 60. When the War was on it was different. My own father-in-law was sent for to go back to work at 75, although he had been finished for 15 years. You wanted men then. You want votes now. You talk about economy.

What are you going to say about the restrictions put upon these people when they have paid all their lives. If they do not pay in direct contributions they are paying, in labour. We say that 60 should be the age when a man should have the right of handing on to his wife the opportunity of enjoying the pension which he has worked for all his life. In our class we do not get married at that age. We begin early and finish quicker. The other section of society begin at the other end. They get married at an age when most of our people have brought up families. Even members of the Royal family do not think of getting married until they have sown all their wild oats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] We have no oats to sow. I am telling the truth. The average age of marriage in your class is 35, and the average age of marriage in my class is 21. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they cannot afford to keep on waiting; because the pleasure of life will have departed before they are qualified to enjoy it. Therefore, we have to begin quick and finish soon. We ask that the last privilege left to us in human life shall not be denied us, and that instead of depriving us of benefits you should reduce the age from 70 to 60.

I wish to call attention to the very embarrassing and unfair limitations which the House is going to place upon a section of the people. The more we debate this Bill, the more we find that the limitations increase and the more we find unsuspected cases of widows who do not come within the benefits of the Bill. Here we find a limitation which has no justification. It is simply an attempt to introduce a social penalty into a piece of legislation that is not designed to deal with the morals of the people. The object of the Amendment is to deal with some of the limitations of the Bill and to make the benefits available for a larger number of widows who have been led to expect pensions upon the death of their husbands. The benefits are contributory. That is a limitation which cannot be defended by any appeal to morals. There is no justification, morally, for denying to one widow whose husband may not have contributed a benefit that is given to another widow.

I would remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the question of 60 or 70.

Here is a limitation of which the Committee was not aware until we began to discuss the effects of previous Amendments. We find four conditions which a widow who marries a man at the age of 60 has to satisfy before she comes within the scope of the. Bill. First of all, there must be children born of the marriage. Secondly, the duration of the marriage must be at least five years. Thirdly, the widow must have been a widow before the marriage of her recently deceased husband.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

The conditions to which the hon. Member refers are not cumulative but alternative.

The first condition is where the husband is over 60 years of age. Then there are three limitations which the widow is given an opportunity of satisfying in order to qualify for benefit. There is no moral justification for refusing benefit to a widow simply because the husband may have reached the age of 60 before marriage. Take the case of a man who may have contributed towards National Health Insurance from 1911 up to now, that is, 14 years. He is 60 years of age. He may have married a woman of 40 or 45 years of age. There are no children of the marriage. The man dies four years after the marriage, and this woman of 45 years of age is left without a pension because she married a man who was 60 years of age at the time of the marriage. She is penalised because she accepted the risk of marrying a man of that age. Some of the best marriages and the most blessed marriages I have known have taken place between people of fairly advanced years. Here is a man of 60 years of age, of good health, who works every day, with expectations of 10 years of health or even longer, and because he may have been a day or two over the age of 60 when the marriage took place the widow is penalised as compared with the woman who marries a man of 59. This is a disqualification that could not be defended. There is no room in the Bill for the kind of censorious argument that is directed against the working people and against no other class.

Something has been said about nurses in institutions that may connive with men who are expecting death to arrange a marriage, so that the nurse should get the benefit of a pension. If she is a nurse she is in employment and she is brought under this Bill. She will be called upon to pay, and she will be getting what she has paid for, if she has been a nurse for any period of time. If this provision were extended from 60 to 70 we say that is an age when perhaps it will not be reasonable to expect a woman of moderate age to marry a man of this age. We say that this is an age where the useful working life might be approaching the end and the age of pension at the present time has been arrived at. We accept the substitution of 60 without admitting that there is any reason why one widow who is the wife of an insured person who has paid his contribution under the scheme should be disabled as compared with any other insurance person.

I rise to support this Amendment that has been moved so eloquently by the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). I confess it appears a very piffling sort of Amendment, but I would point out that the restriction is a very piffling sort of restriction. As a matter of fact this Bill has been designed, in my judgment, to stifle a growing demand that the only people who have any moral right to live on the labour of others are the widows, the orphans, or the aged. I am quite satisfied that the growing sense of public responsibility for these three sections of the community is so great that all these very small restrictions will pale into insignificance. I am quite satisfied that it will be generally recognised very shortly that these restrictions have only been introduced to whittle away and reduce the cost of the whole scheme. As a matter of fact I feel that, despite the elaborate actuarial calculations that have been placed before us, there is no need from a financial point of view to introduce such irritating restrictions as these undoubtedly will prove to be. If it be a really necessary thing, why not introduce it with regard to pensions of all descriptions? Why should a mercenary woman go and marry an old general, many of whom, I suppose, would respond to any advances that were made. It is costing the country a good deal of money to prevent these silly old men falling into the trap. The Government ought to be heartily ashamed of introducing such restrictions. Had they brought a straightforward Bill and left all these pettifogging things out it would have been much better.

The only question is of men between 60 and 70.

I am trying to point out how extremely irritating is such a restriction and how difficult it is to work such a pension scheme when it is put in. It is going to increase the cost of administration. All these things will raise the cost of organising, because you have got to set on officers to find out how old the old chap was when they went to a registry office, whether this woman was a mercenary woman and the result is that you spend more money on this than the whole thing is worth. I trust, for the authority and dignity of Parliament, that such an absurd thing will be not proceeded with.

I am dissatisfied with the replies that have been given I do not think that any satisfactory reply has been made at all. The Minister of Health said that he did not want to impute motives, but the whole of the replies that have been given to the preceding Motion have been an imputation of motives. The Minister I agree was kinder in imputing his motives than the other who preceded him because he simply said it reminds him of some benevolent old gentlemen who have young women to look after them in old age and marry them, and, of course, that was a very good motive indeed. The Attorney-General said frankly that this was in order to obviate the risk of designing young women marrying men over 60 in order to get a pension and so to be on pension until they reached 70. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) drew a harrowing picture which arose out of his knowledge of women. He said he had a great knowledge of women, and he went on to suggest that his knowledge of women was such as to suggest that, if this Clause were passed, there would be a regular rush of young women for men over 60 years of age. He went on to draw another picture of women masquerading in nurse's uniform in order to get hold of these old men of 60. That was the hon. and gallant Member's argument. All this was for the sake of protecting these people. I submit that that kind of argument is not good

enough. It may be that in the years that have to come as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) pointed out, there may be people, now boys and girls of 16 years of age who will pay up to the age of GO and may for various reasons never have been married and may have subscribed to the fund up to that time, and who by reason of this disqualification will be cut out of the benefits accruing to somebody else. It is not good enough. The Minister of Health said that it would create a scandal. I suggest that putting in this qualification will create a bigger scandal than if it were left out. It is a disgrace that a man or woman of this age should have this disqualification put upon them. Surely in the majority of cases if they pay their contributions they should have these pensions. I appeal to the Minister of Health, seeing that he could not accept the removal of the whole proviso, to accept this compromise so as to obviate the hardship on hundreds of these people if this Clause goes through as it is. The Minister of Health would not suggest that the number of people who would get married after this age for mercenary motives is so great as to warrant excluding everybody. I am sure that the number of people who would do that is a very small proportion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

rose, in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246 Noes, 124.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Cluase."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 121.

I beg to move in page 3, line 8, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

There seems to be a fairly general view on this side, and in the Committee generally, that these provisions have been put into this Bill because of an idea held by hon. Members on the Government side that if the Bill be passed—as we desire it to be passed—there will follow immediately on its operation a man hunt. If any such thought as that is in the minds of hon. Members opposite, they are placing the womanhood of the industrial classes of this country on a very low level. Probably most of us on this side know our women folk in the industrial class better than hon. Members opposite have an opportunity of knowing them, and we feel that it is not for a pension of 10s. a week that many of our women folk would deliberately marry a man for whom they had no respect. If it is desired to protect elderly men, the Government should put a drastic Clause into the Bill that any woman found to be chasing an elderly gentleman with a view to marriage would be severely punished.

I remind the Committee that this is called a widows' pension Bill, but we see already that it is not really a widows' pension Bill; it is a pensions Bill for some widows and some widows only. I have known of many marriages in humble life of elderly people—not, it may be, of a young woman marrying an elderly gentleman but marriages of elderly people—which were really marriages of affection and which turned out very well. It must be remembered that many working men are employed in laborious and unhealthy work and at 60 years of age they are on the down grade so far as health is concerned. They may be widowers or elderly bachelors, and they may require and, in many cases, do require, at that age, if they are unmarried or widowers, the help and the attention and service of a good woman and we should rather encourage marriages if that is to be the outcome of them. I would prefer that there should be no waiting period at all but that the widow should be entitled to her pension after the death of her husband. I appeal, however, to the Government to accept this Amendment as a compromise. I do not think the cost would be a very great matter but it would give considerable satisfaction as against the Clause as it now stands.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I felt compelled to refuse to accept these two Amendments because, after all, the fund is in need of defence against certain conditions described in the discussion of the last Amendment, but I do not want to be too stiff about this Clause, and I am ready to go some way to meet the hon. Member. He has suggested two years instead of five. I think two years is too short a period, but if he will make it three years instead of five, I shall be pleased to accept an Amendment to that effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. Smillie.]

Viscountess ASTOR:

I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at the end, to insert the words Provided that where, at the date of the death of her husband, the widow shall be under the age of fifty and shall have no child in respect of whom an additional allowance is payable, her widow's pension shall be suspended during such period, if any, as shall elapse between the date of the expiration of twelve months from such death and the date upon which she shall attain the age of fifty. I had hoped to move this Amendment perhaps at seven or eight o'clock this morning when the Minister of Health might have been prepared to accept it, and when I am certain the Committee was in the stage of being ready to do nearly anything, but owing to the eloquence of our Socialist friends—some would call it long-windedness, but I call it eloquence—the time never came. Perhaps it is just as well that I should now submit it when the Committee is in a more cool and temperate mood. I take it no hon. Member thinks that what we are giving to the children and the widows in this Bill is adequate or final. Certainly the Minister of Health does not think so. No one has dreamed of saying that the widows or the children could live on what they are to get under this Measure. We realise that fact on this side, but we face facts and we prefer having a half-loaf to having no loaf at all. My Amendment has many advantages. One is that it gives an extra 1s. to the eldest child for sickness insurance. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in his "Human Needs of Labour" said of sick children that 6s. was the minimum on which a child could live. Under this Amendment we give for the first child 6s. and for the second child 4s.

I understood that the Noble Lady was moving the Amendment at the top of page 1327 of the Order Paper.

Viscountess ASTOR:

I had to explain in this Amendment how we are going to get the money, and I understood from Mr. Hope that I was to be allowed to bring it into this Amendment in order to save time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I take it that the Amendment which my Noble Friend moves is to be taken with other Amendments, and that what she desires to do is to add to the children's allowances, and to find the necessary funds for that purpose by excluding from the benefits of the Bill a widow who was under the age of 50 at the time of her husband's death and who had not children under age, subject to a pension at the age of 50. First of all, or. the financial side, I am sorry to say that the savings to be achieved by this proposal would not, in themselves, be sufficient to provide the extra, children's allowances which my Noble Friend has in mind, and I have here figures which show that there would be an additional charge in respect of the current year amounting to £300,000. That would rise to £1,000,000, and it would not be until we reach the year 1940 that the balance between the two sides of the account would be achieved. I think, on these grounds alone, I should find it necessary to decline to accept the Amendment, but there are other grounds which seem to me to be conclusive against schemes of this kind. Take the case of a woman of 45 who had children, but all were above the age of 14. She would have been through all the trouble of bringing up her children, and they might to some extent still be dependent upon her. But one year after her husband's death she would cease to receive a pension, and might never reach the age of 50, when, according to my hon. Friend's Amendment she would come back to benefit. I do not think we could justify an Amendment of that kind, which would certainly inflict hardship upon widows, and I do not think it would be acceptable to the men, in respect of whose contribution insurance was payable, who had been forced to make their contribution whether they liked it or not, but who would, as a matter of fact, feel, in these circumstances, that they had left their widows totally unprovided for. Although I recognise the force of the considerations which have led my noble Friend to try to find the finances for her scheme, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

I find myself on this occasion, as on many other occasions, in agreement with the Noble Lady. I consider that it is a good Socialist doctrine that we should give to those according to their need. We are distributing the State's largesse. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Part of it is the State's largesse, and, if I had my way, the whole would be the State's largesse, and there would be no contributions at all. But, at any rate, there is a considerable State contribution. In all the schemes that have been propounded for the relief of widows and dependent children, we have always been told that the need was for pensions for mothers to bring up their children, and I have never heard in any of these schemes that the young childless widows who are left should receive pensions. I think it would be better policy, from the point of view of the State, to give extra money to the widow with children than the widow with no children. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what age."] I should say 35. But, in any case, 10s. is not going to keep a woman off the labour market. She has to earn a living somewhere, or go to the parish for relief. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has pointed out— and I think she represents the views of many who have to earn their living— that these women will be subsidised to undercut women who are being mulcted in payment to pay for them. I think there is a case for leaving the childless widow out of the Bill. It may be unpopular, but it has got to be stated in this House. The young, childless widow in some cases—I admit that the age of 50 is too high—may deliberately avoid her obligations as a mother, and deliberately avoid having children. That is not in the interests of the State, and any State that encourages that will go the way of other Empires that have encouraged it and been ruined in consequence.

Mr. ERSKINE:

Hear, hear!

I am surprised at this unexpected support from Hanover Square. There is little enough money in this Bill for orphans, and anything we can get from some other class of beneficiaries should go to the children. They are the most important. It has been pointed out again and again in these Debates that the allowance for children is absolutely inadequate to bring up healthy children, and it is more important that extra money should be given to the rearing of young children, and that mothers should live with their children, and not leave them to neighbours to look after. It is much more important than that childless women should receive this subsidy, which will enable them to go into the labour market and compete against their unmarried sisters and in some cases, of course, their married sisters too, but I am thinking more of the young unmarried women, who, with the present proportion of the sexes, have little chance of ever getting married. I do not like to use the term "surplus women," but there is a shortage of marriageable men, and there are many women who have little chance of marrying and who have to earn a living under very difficult conditions for the whole of their lives. They will be mulcted weekly to subsidise young, able-bodied women who happen to have lost their husbands and who have no children dependent on them. I think there is a great deal to be said for the principle of the Amendment. I admire the Noble Lady for having brought it forward, and I am not going to remain silent and let the case go by default.

One cannot think for a moment that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has actually read the Amendment, because I am certain of this, that had he devoted any attention whatever to it, he would not have made the speech to which we have just listened. If the Amendment means what I think it means, and what the English language means, to my mind, a woman can have children under this Amendment and not get any pension at all. The Amendment says "shall have no child in respect of whom an additional allowance is payable." That means, in effect, that she can have a child of 15 or 16 years of age who may be apprenticed and get little or no money, and, because they are over 14 years of age and are getting no allowance under this scheme, if this Amendment were carried, that woman would not get a pension. That would be the effect of this proposal, and I am convinced that, if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull had read the Amendment, he would not have been supporting a proposition of that character.

I have read the Amendment, and I realise the point the hon. Member mentions, but, to my mind, it is much more important that young, infant children should have the money than boys and girls of 15 and 16.

That makes it more remarkable still. There is no Member of this House who has so frequently stood up to advocate the rights of children being educated than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, and now he seems to be deprecating the fact that provision is made in this Bill for these children being continued at school. I still think he has not given the consideration to the Amendment that it deserves. I would like to say a word with regard to the source from which this Amendment emanates, and again to express my surprise. If I am not mistaken, this Amendment has emanated from the National Association of Equal Citizenship.

Viscountess ASTOR:

May I just interrupt to say that they are against this Amendment?

It seemed to me, from what I have read, to emanate from them, but, in any case, I must express surprise that it can be suggested in this House that a woman, at 47 years of age, who may have been married for 20 years, who, perhaps, has been unfortunate enough to have no children, or who may have had children and lost them by death, should not have a pension for 12 months, and then that that pension should cease until she is 50. I am thoroughly convinced that a proposition of that character cannot find favour in this House, and I am surprised indeed that the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) should have lent her support to an Amendment which would have that serious and disastrous effect to a woman at that time of life. Does the Noble Lady suggest that for one moment a woman who may have been a housewife for 20 or 25 years is a suitable subject to begin all over again to find employment in order to get a living? It stands to reason that, after she has been a housewife, as it may be possible, for 22 or 23 years, or up to 27 years, and then finds that the breadwinner has been taken from her, she will not be a fit subject to compete in the labour market with those women who have been working all their life in industry. I submit that she will be a totally unfit subject. If this Amendment be carried, I think it is fair to say that the Noble Lady opposite will have-carried an Amendment that will be calculated, under certain circumstances, to foster a standard of life among women which she herself has more than once protested against. Because a woman must live. It is quite evident that after she is 47, and can find no means of existing by her own endeavour in industry, there are only two sources open to her—the one is the Poor Law, and the other is that she shall sell her body and soul to keep alive. It is conceivable that circumstances would arise, if this Amendment be carried, that would mean that women would be driven to that undesirable extreme in which they would have to seek to get their living by selling both their body and their soul.

May I also express my deep surprise at the source from which this Amendment has corned May I also express my surprise at the support that it has received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)? I feel sure that hon. Members have had no experience of the Poor Law and cognate matters, or they would not have spoken as they have done. It has been my fortunate or unfortunate experience to have had experience of the Poor Law. Many women, long before they reach 47, are not fit for work, and have to seek the aid of the Poor Law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. G. Spencer) has said after a woman has been a housewife for 25 years and her husband dies, there is not a great deal left for her but domestic service. As has been pointed out, there would appear to be no alternative, failing the help suggested in the Bill, to the dreadful course suggested. I trust the Government are going to hold to their decision not to have this Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR:

Might I just explain, before withdrawing the Amendment, why it was put down? We know that the Government have only a certain sum of money, and that they are not going beyond it. I myself know of cases of hardship to widows who have children, and who have arrived at 45. I quite realise that; but I had to take into consideration in the meantime that the main purpose of the Clause is for the young widow with small children. It seemed to me that the most needy case was the young widow with young children, and that in a case of that kind even a few shillings more would be very helpful. I quite realise what has been said by hon. Members opposite, but the whole point in my mind was the young widow with young children. I am very sorry that the Minister of Health says that he cannot give what I ask, because it would not work out in his scheme. The actuarial report that I had worked out for me suggests that my Amendment would have given 1s. a week extra to the children. The Minister himself in his Second Reading speech put out the suggestion that childless widows under 40 might be taken off the funds and brought in again at 65. My scheme would have brought the widow in again at 50. I must accept what the Minister of Health says. I know he is just as anxious as I am about the children, and I am perfectly certain that he has done everything he can to meet the case. As to the suggestion that I have always fought for widows' pensions, I have fought for these things, and in the course of it have come to consider the tragedy of widows with children who have gone to school, and the mother left, possibly for four or five years, without anything at all. She will not be able to live on 10s. a week. [Interruption.] I quite agree, and I have considered it all, but on the whole I thought the case of the widow with young children was more important, and I risked the unpopularity of this. I know it is unpopular. The Minister made the point that a man who insured for his widow would expect her to get the money, but he has also made the point that all insurance is a risk. A man who insures in the expectation that his widow will remain a widow is insuring for a risk, because we all know that there is nothing more taking than a young widow. It has been shown that 5,000 of these widows marry out of 11,000.

Under the last Amendment she was not to marry a man at 60. What is she to do?

Viscountess ASTOR:

I am not going back to the last Amendment. We fought that out at the time, and I am not going to be drawn into that. I would only say that I deeply regret that the Minister cannot find a way of giving the children more money. In moving this I was quite willing to risk unpopularity, but I wanted to give the young widow with children extra money. I would like to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

There are plenty of ways of finding this money if the Noble Lady will take a little more of her courage in two hands and organise her fellow Members on the other side to bring pressure to bear upon the Ministry to compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find more money from the super-rich. This is the wickedest proposition that has been made. I know the sort of women this would penalise. Every Poor Law guardian, and I am speaking in the presence of numbers of them, knows perfectly well that the most pathetic spectacle that ever presents herself before a relief committee is the childless woman who has lost her husband and very often has not a friend in the world. Now it is said that the desire is to find money to give to the children. We also want to raise the allowance to the children. Will the Noble Lady and her friends vote with us when we are trying to do that? No, because they will not go where the money is. I am talking to you.

Address the Chair.

An HON MEMBER:

Do not point.

This is nonsense. I have seen Members standing at the Box and talking right down the House, and I am going to look just where I like in the House. The point I am making is the case of the women whom you are going to rob, or propose to rob, though now you are trying to withdraw from the position, provides another instance of how well-to-do people try to do good by doing evil. If only all of us in this House would just put ourselves in the place either of the old friendless man, or the middle-aged friendless man or woman, we should soon understand how iniquitous it would be to offer her this money. I think that is a condemnation of the whole scheme, and it only proves that the Noble Lady opposite ought to be with us when we propose to pay 20s. pension instead of 10s. The fact is that everybody knows that this is not a Socialist proposition, and it is not even socialistic. If we were bringing in a scheme we should bring it in to apply universally and pay for it out of public funds. Under a decently organised scheme of national service, we should not have a national penalisation of the workers, and we should not give a young woman money in this way.

At present you make her husband pay and you would have to set up a great system of inquiry agencies to find out what the woman was doing, and also find out whether she was able to live on this money. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has rejected this proposal, and I only want to say that wherever the Amendment came from, it came from that sort of body which one associates with the Charity Organisation Society, who always want to organise charity by getting rid of charity so that there is nothing given at all in the end, and they always try to put the burden on one worker in order to help some others.

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in describing this as a wicked Amendment. The Noble Lady opposite, whatever she may be deficient in, is not deficient in courage. One must admire the spirit in which she has struck an entirely new widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. She seeks to deprive the childless widow of 10s. a week benefit, but she does this not from any wicked motive but in order to give 1s. a week more to the widow with children. When we con- sider her scheme as an alternative to the present pension scheme, I do not think it can possibly commend itself to the Committee for that reason, because she is taking away 10s. from a woman in need in order to give 1s. a week more to a widow with children.

If she was by this proposal enabling the children to receive a better education we should have more sympathy than we have under present circumstances. What seems to have escaped the Noble Lady's attention is that this is a contributory pension scheme. If we were distributing benefits gratuitously to the community, one could understand the Noble Lady's anxiety to give a preference to a. widow with children. She is not, however, distributing the money of the community, but it is the money of those who have paid contributions, and this is one of the specific risks which a man has insured himself against because he wishes to provide for his wife by a system of public insurance in some way and he has to do it by this means. There is nothing to prevent a man going to an insurance company and trying to make some provision for his widow.

As regards the argument which has been brought forward that these women will compete on an unfair basis with other women in industry, that argument is not tenable for a moment, for this reason, that there are 300,000 war widows engaged in industry to-day, who are drawing pensions at a far higher rate than 10s. a week. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) says they can stay at home, but I do not think a woman can be expected to stay at home on 20s. a week, or even 25s., and do nothing; she has got to go into industry, and nobody has yet said that these women who are war widows should be deprived of the power to augment their pension because they are competing unfairly with others. You cannot discover that argument for the first time when you have a Bill to give pensions to civilians' widows. This scheme being a contributory pension scheme, the only result of the Noble Lady's Amendment, if it were carried, would be that you would have to diminish the contribution at present exacted under this scheme, because you would diminish the benefits that you intend to give to the widow of a man who is insured under the Bill. While, therefore, I appreciate, as the Committee appreciates, very fully, the good intentions of the Noble Lady, I think that, on reflection, she will realise, as I have done, and as I am sure the Committee has done, that her proposal would put all the beneficiaries in a very much worse position than they are in at the present moment, and would destroy the whole unity of the scheme.

The whole of the argument that has been directed against this Amendment is based upon what I described on the Second Reading as the hectic widow of one night—the young woman who marries, her husband dies, and she falls into the pension. But when one looks at the matter practically, how many of these women are there? I am told that it has been actuarially calculated that the number of married women under 35 who are childless is 4 per cent., so that the only women under 35 who would get the benefit of this Measure in the way to which the Noble Lady was addressing herself would be 4 per cent. of the whole number of married women. The 96 per cent. would be women from 35 to 50 or 60, whose children had passed into other work. I want to know when you have an insurance scheme, which is a contract, why should a husband, who makes a contribution, year after year, in order that the woman who looked after him and his children should be provided for, be told that she is to get nothing if he dies so late in life that the children she has brought up are earning their livelihood elsewhere? It is a monstrous proposition. Is it to be said that when a poor woman has done her work and brought up her children, and some of them, at 16 or 17, are away earning money, they do not still look to her and look to the home for their comfort and care when they are well over 16 or 17 years of age?

Mr. ERSKINE:

Divide!

The hon. Member, every time I have spoken, has interjected the only intelligible remark I have heard him capable of making. I hope he will learn to restrain himself in future. I endeavoured to make a few observations, and everyone else had the graciousness to listen to me except the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 133.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 260; Noes. 120.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

11.0 P.M.

I think that the conduct of the Government in regard to this Measure is becoming not merely objectionable, but scandalous. The Bill is one of extreme importance. It has been examined by the Committee up to now in the most sympathetic, in the most careful, and in the most unobjectionable manner. I question whether any hon. Member can recall a contentious Measure of first class importance that has been treated in a more friendly way by the Opposition than has this Measure. The conduct of the Minister of Health, who is in charge of the Bill, and of the Attorney-General, who is here to assist him, has been not merely offensive to the Opposition but degrading to the traditions of this House. When Members on this side, displaying a fund of knowledge of the subject that ought to have been welcomed and co-operated with amicably by the Government, in rising and intelligently discussing this Bill have put questions to the Government and its representatives respectfully asking for information, they have been treated most offensively by their questions being disregarded and the Closure being moved. That went on in the earlier stages and we did not object to it. But when we reach a stage at which the representative of the Government rises and submits to you a Motion "That the Question be now put," on a Clause, before giving us any opportunity of discussing that Clause, it is our business to protest, not merely on our own behalf, but as people who are responsible for protecting the rights and dignities of this House.

I can only be forced to believe that the Minister of Health and his associates would not behave in this manner if they were in a fit physical condition. We have to make due allowance for the fact that they have come through a laborious time, and no doubt their nerves are a little rattled. But there is no reason why important business of this kind should be conducted to meet the convenience of people who really ought to be in their beds. If we were to submit to this, we would not be doing our duty. I think it is a perfectly reasonable request that, in the present physical condition of His Majesty's Government, as displayed in the proposals which they have now, by their overwhelming majority, succeeded in carrying through this House, we should report Progress in order that they might rest and come back in a more fit state to transact the business of the Committee. I hope the Motion will not be objected to by the Government but if they do not see their way to accept this proposal and if this measure is to be discussed at greater length I hope that we and the Committee generally will be treated with more courtesy during the remaining discussion.

rose to put the Question.

rose—

HON. MEMBERS:

Order!

On a point of Order. I want to ask whether we are not allowed to say a word on this Motion. Are we to be gagged by the majority and by yourself?

I am about to put the Question, after which the hon. Member can speak.

It is excusable that we should attempt to make our voices heard, because the proceedings on this Bill have up to the present, occasionally, been in my judgment very irregular indeed. Last night I tried hard to get in a point, and had I been allowed to do so it would have saved some amount of disorder. [Laughter.] I can understand that this business is a joke to the Members who only come to vote, but those who sat here all last night trying to improve the Bill feel that it is a serious matter. What we object to to-night is that the Attorney-General a few hours ago was asked a question by one of my hon. Friends who very seldom takes part in debate in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he does not want to do so.

Like many on the other side.

He put a perfectly simple question to the Attorney-General in a perfectly respectful manner, and all he got in reply was a Motion by the Attorney-General "That the Question be now put." I speak in the presence of men who were here during the heated controversies connected with the Home Rule, Parliament and Insurance Acts, and I want to say as regards the behaviour and the Amendments and the discussions by the group on these benches in regard to this Bill and to the Government's legislation this year and the year before last—why we have simply given you your business without any opposition at all compared with the attitude that was taken by your party on those other occasions. What I complain of is that hon. Members opposite have only to mention the Closure and it is granted. Here is an important Clause containing a principle which many of us hate and detest, and we are denied with the consent of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"!

I cannot allow the hon. Member to censure the Chair.

If an hon. Member thinks your conduct is wrong, as I think it is wrong, is he not entitled to say so?

I pointed out yesterday that if any hon. Member has a complaint against the Chair, there is the regular method of placing a Motion on the Paper.

Surely a Member is entitled to express an opinion. I am going to tell you you are wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

I did not express any opinion. I simply said that it was done with the consent of the Chair, and, without your consent, the Motion could not have been put. I was only stating a fact. I do not dispute your right to exercise your judgment as you will, but I wish to point out that you denied us the right which I always thought was the inalienable right of a minority to discuss the adding of the Clause of the Bill.

That is not the question which the hon. Member ought to discuss. It is for me to decide whether I consider the Motion before the Committee has been adequately discussed.

But I am supporting this Motion to report Progress because I think the Closure ought not to have been moved. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will remember that in the Home Rule Parliament and the Parliament that dealt with the House of Lords not a line of any of those Bills was allowed to pass without discussion. Any attempt on the part of the Liberal Government of that day to do what has been done to us to-night would have led not merely to uproar, but to a riot. The right hon. Gentleman himself was subjected to physical violence, and I am rather tired of this sort of attitude towards us who are sitting here now, simply because most of us who sit here are quite inexperienced compared with the people who sit on the Front Bench there. But we are entitled, if we were only 20, to the privilege of discussing whether a Clause shall or shall not be added to the Bill, and especially so important a Clause as this, as to whether during all night sittings any set of men are in a fit condition to carry on legislation of this kind. That is a matter of opinion, but when you have got a brute force majority, such as the Government of to-day have got, we must put up with the position, and, personally, I do not complain about that a bit, but I do complain that you do not play the game. Playing the game is that, being stronger than us, you ought to give us more of the privileges of the House and not take some away, and I say I have reason to support this, because the thing that happened just now is something for which you will have to go back a long while to discover any precedent, and I hope my hon. Friends who are going to remain here to-night will not only fight this Bill line by line, but word by word, in order to teach the majority that if they want this sort of fighting, they shall have as much as we can possibly give.

On a point of Order. Is this discussion in order? It appears to be directed to reflecting on the action of the House in passing the Closure. I was always under the impression that the action of the House could not be commented upon in Debate.

That is quite true. It is out of Order to pass censure on the House for what it has done, but I understood that the main attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was directed against the conduct of the Debate by the Minister.

I wish to support the Motion to report Progress on the ground that I cannot understand why, on a Bill of very considerable complexity, which requires careful examination, and which has received no more but rather less consideration than similar measures in the past, we should be compelled night after night to sit up in order to proceed with the Measure to the exhaustion, both of the Ministers in charge and of the Members of this House. Belonging, as I do, to a small group which cannot work in relays— [Interruption.] It is impossible for us to arrange, like the other parties, for relays of Members to carry on the discussion. We have had a fairly long discussion on various Amendments to Clause 3, and the Minister himself, in the middle, accepted an Amendment which considerably modified the character of the Clause. We have taken no part in the discussions on the Amendments, reserving our right to speak on the Clause as a whole. It is a very drastic step taken by the Minister, after he himself has allowed an alteration in the Clause of that magnitude, not to allow any discussion, long or short, on the Clause itself. In view of his own action, surely that was an extraordinary procedure and one which seems very unnecessary when he reflects how much business he has got through since the House met on this Bill.

If I contrast the speed with which this Bill is going through with my recollections of the action of the party opposite when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was passing the National Health Insurance Bill, I know that at that time there was continuous obstructive opposition, not for a few days, but for weeks, and I think we have a serious right to complain that the Minister in charge of a Bill of this kind should endeavour to stifle discussion and to do a thing which I think is worse, and that is to drag on the Debates till a time in the morning when neither the House nor the country has the slightest opportunity of knowing what is going on. After all, we are dealing with a Measure which is affecting very large bodies of people outside who are deeply interested in every part of this Bill. They may not be following it in the detail with which we have to follow it, but after all they are following it, and therefore I think it is very remarkable indeed that the discussion should have to be carried on under such conditions, for no reason that I can ascertain except possibly that we shall have a little earlier holiday. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord has not taken any part in the discussion on the Clauses of this Bill, and I do not see what right he has to object to anybody who takes a serious interest in the discussion protesting against this procedure.

I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

HON. MEMBERS:

Withdraw.

If the Noble Lord assures me that he did not interrupt me, I will at once withdraw what I said. I am not intervening to delay the Committee, but I only wanted to say, on behalf of those for whom I can speak, that we strongly oppose this action on the part of the Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

My experience of this House is not so much as to enable me to compare the amount of discussion on this Bill with the amount of discussion that has taken place on measures in the past. But I have been here long enough to know that the criticisms and observations to which we have listened to-day are always made on a like occasion. I think hon. Members who have been desirous of taking part in the discussion will agree that we on the Government benches have listened with unexampled patience to a repetition of the same arguments, and there has been an extraordinary reluctance to use the closure.

On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order, and is it not making a reflection on the Chair, to say that the arguments put forward have been a repetition? Is it not your duty, Captain Fitzroy, to see that order is kept by declaring whether or not there is repetition?

That is in my keeping, and if I had exercised my right as often as I might have done I might get in the way of many speeches.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

We have done nothing that was not warranted by the circumstances. Having said that, I hope we shall now proceed to get on with the business.

I want to say only a word or two—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—because whatever else the Minister of Health may have to say on the debate I am quite sure that he cannot complain of any sort of obstruction, at least from the Front Opposition Bench. There has been absolutely none—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—I have been here during almost the whole of the debate to-night, and there has been very little intervention from the Front Bench. It must have been apparent, even to the Government, that Clause 3 was one upon which some general observations might have to be made. There were one or two-observations which we thought ought to be made which we kept in view of the Clause being moved, and which could have been referred to in a very few sentences which we thought and still think—were of very great importance. I cannot help thinking that it would at least have been courteous had some indication been given that there was to be no discussion on this Clause. If we had known that it might have been possible to put in a few of the more important sentences upon one of the Amendments. There was not a single Member on this Front Bench who had the slightest doubt but that the Clause was going to be debated. I imagine one would have to go back years for a precedent for moving the Clause without notice on a Bill without any Member of the Opposition having the opportunity to speak. Although I would be the last to suggest any intentional discourtesy on the part of the Government, certainly it is most regrettable, to my mind, that no indication at all was given that this Clause was going to be so adopted, in order that those who desired to say a few words, without in the slightest degree obstructing, should have the opportunity to do so.

I would like to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who very kindly, and I think over charitably, excused the frame of mind of the Government on the ground that they were, perhaps, over-tired after the all-night exertions. That is an excessively charitable view to take. That the Government are confident of their sure majority; not merely have they the numbers, but they know that the Members behind them will make no protest, whatever violence is done to the traditions of the House. I have not been long in the House, but sufficiently long to have seers occasions in other Parliaments when men on the Government side put the decencies of public debate above mere party considerations, believing that freedom of debate was an essential part of the Constitution, and that the fair treatment of a minority was also an essential part of the Constitution. Now the Government know that behind them there is a body of men who act as a machine, who will walk into the lobby and support them, however unjust and unfair is the proposal that is put forward. Not one element of sportsman ship with regard to the rights of minorities has yet been displayed by the members of the party on the other side. Hon and right hon. Members opposite are not displaying this attitude for the first time. When important issues were before the House and the House was entitled to argument, explanations and exposition from right hon. Gentlemen holding responsible Cabinet positions, we have been fobbed off with airy trivialities, with light jests, for they knew that any vapid remarks were sufficient to carry their band into the lobby and that they could rely on that great, stupid, unthinking force behind them. I use the word deliberately and advisedly, because where there is no sign of intelligence we are entitled to assume stupidity. Relying on that force, not the force of reason and of argument, upon which the whole principle of Parliamentary government is based, they have put reason and argument on one side and have adopted the method of force. They have used it on this occasion to closure a legitimate debate on an important matter affecting millions of people, in fact, affecting the whole population. I would like right hon. Gentlemen to understand that their numerical strength is not the last word, and that all the Standing Orders of this House cannot prevent an Opposition making its opposition effective, that all the majority on the other side cannot enable a Government to pass through legislation against an opposition that is absolutely unwilling and is determined in its objection to being forced. If I were leading this party to-night I would take care that not one other scrap of business was done inside this House tonight until its best traditions, the traditions of reason and argument, rather than the traditions of force and numbers, were allowed to operate.

In these matters the lead should be taken by those who can lead, and I invite them to make the experiment now. The Minister of Health has left the House, and I am the last person to blame him for doing so because he has listened very patiently to our arguments, but I would like to point out that a good deal of the time of the Committee was taken up unnecessarily discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) which in the end she desired to withdraw.

Yes, and after the Noble Lady had asked permission to withdraw her Amendment the Opposition obstructed by delivering five more speeches.

Hon. Members opposite should not complain of hon. Members on this side objecting to the withdrawal of an Amendment. In this particular case a very important question of principle was raised. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there is an organised system of absenteeism in operation on the Government side of the House and we are unable to organise a system of relays under which hon. Members opposite are being encouraged to neglect their Parliamentary duties. I think the country should know the way in which the Chief Government Whip thinks it desirable to use his steam roller majority because his supporters are not even on the premises to listen to our arguments. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I admit that a great deal of time was lost yesterday, and I am the last person to complain of freedom being given to the opposition, but it is quite a wrong thing afterwards to try to make up for lost time by artificially curtailing the Debate to-night.

I do not wish to question the Chairman's discretion in accepting this Motion if it is necessary to pass legislation of of this kind by such methods, but by this process we are doing a great disservice to those who will come under this Bill, and if mistakes are made in consequence great injury will be done to large bodies of people outside and it is unreasonable to expect hon. Members to keep on discussing a Bill of this nature night after night in the small hours of the morning.

I want to join in the protest that has been made, and to say quite frankly that I am glad the Opposition Front Bench have at last appreciated the way in which this committee is being treated by the Government of the day. I was under the impression that we had been badly treated yesterday, and, if this protest had been made then by the Front Bench, the probability is that those who represent and speak for the Government would not have dared to move the Closure on a Clause without allowing any discussion to take place upon it. I want to draw your attention, Captain FitzRoy, to one outstanding feature of the Closure that was moved, and what it deprived the Committee of. The Committee had, until that time, been discussing verbal alterations in the Clause itself, and very large questions of principle were left untouched, because you, Sir, or Mr. Hope, had he been in the Chair, would have at once ruled out of Order any reference to such matters, since they were not covered by the Amendments which were on the Order Paper. As a consequence, these particular points were left absolutely untouched by any of the Members who spoke on the Amendments, and the feeling, naturally, was that these; wider points would have been touched upon when the Motion was made that the Clause stand part, and the Committee were free to discuss the Clause as a whole, and all that it portended to those who were to come within the scope of the Bill.

I submit that in moving the Closure the Government deprived Members of the Committee—not merely the official Opposition but those below the Gangway as well—of an opportunity of making their views clear as to what the Clause actually meant. I submit that the Opposition, whether it be a small Opposition like our Friends below the Gangway, or the larger Opposition above the Gangway, have a right, by being sent to this House, to express the point of view of those who sent them here, without being subjected to the gag as we have been during the night and again this afternoon. Every question that has been decided by a vote here has been preceded by a Closure Motion moved by some Member of the Government. Not one single Amendment has been put to the Committee as a Question unless preceded by the Closure moved by Members of the Government. I submit that the Opposition have a right to discuss those questions which have been brought into this House by the Government. I put it to you, Sir, that you, in the capacity of Chairman, are the custodian of the right of all Members of the House, even of the private Member who may not be attached to any of the parties that are represented in the House. You, as the custodian of the privileges and rights of Members, will at once agree when I say that on a Bill of this highly controversial character containing, as it does, matters which could not have been submitted to the electorate so that they would have an opportunity of expressing their view upon the detailed effect it is going to have, the representatives of the people have a right to make their statement here without any fetters being placed upon them, without the gag being moved, without their liberties being shackled or their rights taken away by a Government who, believing that they have a 200 majority in the House, are prepared to run the steam roller over any opposition we may put up.

I indicated, in answer to a point of order by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) earlier in the Debate, that it was not open to Members to call in question the action taken by the Committee. The hon. Member is getting perilously near condemning the Committee for the action it took in passing the Closure.

I am sorry if what I have said has misled you as to my meaning. What I wish you to understand is that we look upon you as the custodian of the liberties of Members of the House.

That may be so, but that does not affect the fact that criticism cannot be allowed at the time in Debate.

I must again protest against the way in which I am being misunderstood. I am not calling in question your action in accepting the Motion for the Closure. What I am stating is that there are certain rights which Members are supposed to have, and the Chairman and the Speaker are the custodians of the rights and privileges of all Members. That, surely, is not in any way challenging your right to accept the Closure. What I am stating is that no Government, because of a huge majority behind it, is entitled to use its power to move the Closure and force it through without a Debate taking place on the question.

The hon. Member talks of forcing the Closure through. The Closure was applied by the action of the Committee, and it is not in order to censure the Committee for the action it has taken.

I am censuring the conduct of the Government in having moved the Closure. I have been stating that all along. If Members care to vote for them that is their look out. If we vote against them that is our privilege. I submit that the Government is using its force as the Government and not as the House. I endorse entirely everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton) with regard to what his action would be if certain contingencies are likely to arise. I am growing sick and tired of the dumb manner with which Members behind the Government treat everything that is put forward by their own side. Last night, on one of the questions that was voted upon, every back bencher who spoke expressed himself or herself as being in support of the principle which was advocated by Members on these benches who were pleading for the Amendment. When it came to the vote, although they would not speak on the question, and they showed by their interruptions that they were, or thought they were, as great humanitarians as we claim to be, and as much interested in the welfare of the poor for whom this Bill is supposed to cater—

On a point of Order. Are we discussing last night's proceedings or to-night's?

What the hon. and gallant Member is saying is not out of Order on this Motion.

If the hon. Member would come oftener to the House he would understand the procedure. Hon. Members opposite, by their interruptions, expressed views favourable to the principle of that Amendment, but when it came to a question of taking part in the debate they remained silent, and when it came to the vote they walked into the Lobby and voted against the very principle which, according to their interjections, they favoured. If that is the way in which hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are going to carry out their views, and if the Government is going to use that blind loyalty and that unswerving devotion of the dumb, patient, driven oxen behind them, we, on these Benches, or some of us, are going to make as much trouble as we possibly can for the Government. We will keep them here. [Interruption.] We kept you out of your seat, anyhow.

You did not do it.

If the hon. Member likes, he can come outside. I want to protest against the constant interruptions by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine), who represents the wealthy people.

Mr. ERSKINE:

I have more poor people in my constituency than you know about.

The hon. Member may have more poor people than I know of in his constituency, but I am certain that he does not represent them here.

Mr. ERSKINE:

rose—

In reply to a point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) I said that the hon. Member was in Order, but he is not in Order in comparing the merits of various constituencies.

The hon. Member for St. George's compared his constituency first by referring to the particular condition of his constituents, and I think I have a right to reply to an interjection of that kind.

The hon. Member must not be led away.

I am not being led away. I am afraid that I led him away. If the Government continues what they have been doing to-night, I, and several others, will keep them going not only as long as they are willing to stand it, but so long that the next Motion to report Progress and to go home and get some sleep will come from their side, and not from these Benches.

I am anxious to support this Motion to report Progress, not so much in the interests of the party to which I belong but in the interests of the Minister of Health himself. He is in for a, stormy time. He is riding two horses at once, and the saddle is becoming very dangerous. Morning after morning, week after week, month after month upstairs the right hon. Gentleman tries to ride one horse, and I am anxious that he shall have this Adjournment now in order that he may ride that horse upstairs more efficiently. We require the right hon. Gentleman at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning to have the best brains, to hear his arguments in order to protect His Majesty's Bill upstairs. I ask him, in the interests of those who have at the present time on their shoulders more than they can bear, to report Progress. I have had the good fortune to sit in this House for 20 years, and I have seen many Oppositions. No Government of the day ever brought forward a contentious Measure and hoped for one moment to get it through Committee as this Government is trying to do with this Bill. In every case the Government brought forward its Motion for the guillotine Closure of that measure in Committee. They even brought it forward for the Budget Hon. Members seem to have forgotten it. They assume that there is never going to be Opposition again; but these guillotine resolutions were introduced in the old days because the Opposition was vigorous and attentive to business, and would have kept the Government of that day up every night if they had not introduced a Closure Resolution to get through their business.

Do hon. Members opposite remember that the very fact that they have abrogated their functions as Members of Parliament makes it all the more incumbent on us, as an Opposition which has not abrogated its functions, to examine a Measure such as this with considerable care? At present we are complaining because the Government moved the Closure on Clause 3 without allowing the Clause to be discussed after it had been modified. I ask the Committee to observe what that modification was.

The principal proviso in Clause 3 was, that a widow should be ruled out unless she had a child. I should be out of order in going into detail, but the qualifications originally in the Bill made the whole Clause absolutely trifling. We asked, when discussing the Amendment, what it would cost if these qualifications were wiped out, and we got no answer. In a measure like this in which finance is the whole thing, the Treasury has been unrepresented on that bench. I am speaking perfectly honestly when I say that I would sooner have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here watching the Bill, and let the Minister of Health have a holiday, so that he can be fit for his own proper Bill to-morrow. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has taken the trouble to come down, and when the Opposition asked the most pertinent question as to what would be the cost, we are not told. The representatives of the Government do not know.

12.0 M.

This particular Bill, more than any other Bill, should be discussed during hours when it can be reported. It is a Bill about which every one of my constituents wants to know. The first thing they ask is, "What can we do to get the pension? What does it cost? How do we get in?" I do not say that it is of enormous value that the country should read the criticism of the Opposition, but it is important that people should have the explanation of the Government so that they may know what the Bill does. Half the value of discussing any measure is the value derived by the public from the Government explanations. Everybody who has been on a Committee upstairs knows that. It is just as important in this House. People who are to benefit or who are not to benefit by this Bill cannot know what is in it. It is an extremely complicated and long Measure. Therefore it is supremely desirable that the explanations given by the Government and the information given to the public, should be given in a form and at a time which will enable the public to get that information. For all these reasons I trust that we shall carry the Motion. Ministers are overworked, a Treasury representative is not here, the Opposition has been reasonable compared with Oppositions of the past. Hon. Members on this side have to do double duty, because there are so few of them, and because their duties have been surrendered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Finally, in all my experience of the House, I have never known the Closure moved upon an amended Clause without a word of discussion being allowed on it.

I desire to enter my protest against the way in which this Debate is being conducted by the Government. Of course, if hon. Members opposite assume that anything that the Cabinet introduces is a perfect Measure, it is very annoying to them that the Opposition should take up time with criticism. That is exactly the attitude that has been taken up by the Government supporters from start to finish. During the two days that I have been sitting here listening to these debates, I have seen no attempt made by supporters of the Government to question anything that has been said. They have sat silent with resigned expressions on their faces. I want to know; can anyone here tell me?

I can!

What can you tell me? It is not much. As we know, it lies in a man's power to give an argument, but not to give an understanding.

The hon. and learned Member asks for arguments. I will give one. The first three Clauses of the 1911 Insurance Act went through in six hours and five minutes. The first three Clauses of this Bill have occupied 51 hours.

Here is a Bill that I undertake to say not 10 per cent of the hon. Members opposite understand. I have seldom known, while I have been in this House, any hon. Member who was capable of speaking intelligently on any subject, who was not under the strongest temptation to rise and speak. Hon. Members opposite seem to suffer from no such temptation. The inference is that they say to themselves, "We are in a strong majority. What our Government brings in ought to go through, and any-

body who dares to comment on it is a nuisance." Why should a serious Measure of this kind involving the interests both of the rich and the poor of this country—the poor because they are to receive benefits and the industrial rich because their businesses may be effected —be rushed through under the closure during the day while during the night an endeavour is made so to exhaust people that most of it may pass without any proper discussion. These night sittings are not very sensible. There is some slight justification for them if they are used to exhaust a flow of obstructive oratory but that has not been the case in this instance. As the last speaker has said, the most illuminating things—to the country—in the discussion of these complex Measures are the explanations given by Ministers on the Clauses. Under this kind of procedure none of these reaches the newspapers, because the newspaper representatives have more sense than we have and go to bed. I have read somewhere—I think the lines are by one of the Irish poets—that, The best of all ways to lengthen one's daysIs to steal a few hours from the night, my dear. That is all right in that mood, and for the purposes of the appropriate pursuit, but never until I joined the House of Commons have I known a sane body of men who pretended to be seriously doing business openly and glaringly keeping these hours which on other occasions we try to deny that we ever keep, on the pretext that they are really doing business. The style of stuff with which we are going on now is just—[Interruption]—the style of thing with which we are going on with now, and in which I willingly acknowledge I am playing a part, is quite worthy of a moment when most of our intelligence is reposing in the arms of Morpheus.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 110.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 212.