take our view to-day. They are not hostile to the proposals of the Bill, neither are we; but they are convinced that it has not been either properly considered by this House or properly understood in the country, and that further time should be given for both purposes. That is our Amendment, and when we have voted for it, so far as I am concerned, I shall take no further part in any further Amendment. I shall leave to the Government the responsibility, and it is a very big responsibility, of forcing an immense scheme like this upon the country, when there is not a man in this House who does not know that it has not been properly considered and is not a measure which, in its present form, can be otherwise than disadvantageous to the people of this country.

I hardly venture to mention the trade unions, because I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very sarcastic about my hon. Friend who was leading the Opposition [Mr. Arthur J. Balfour], because he took an interest in these bodies. I venture, with all humility, to say that I also am interested in them. Is there any member of a trade union who doubts that, judging by the pounds, shillings, and pence interest, it will be to the advantage of members of trade unions to leave their societies (for they cannot give the same benefits), and join societies which will give higher benefits? It must be so. I do not mean to say that trade unionists may not be actuated by other motives. I am the first to acknowledge that the working-class have always shown a readiness to sacrifice themselves for the interests of their class as a whole. I admit that, and I do not say that actuated by these unselfish motives they may not still continue to be members of trade unions. But if they do, it will be against their interests, and the temptation will be very great for the best lives to leave the trade unions and join societies where they will get better benefits.

If that is true, even within the limits of approved societies, what is it when you come down to the wretched outcasts who are deposit contributors? We have been accused a great deal this afternoon of a change of front, more or less, on this Bill. I am not going

to say anything stronger on this subject than I said on the second reading. I pointed out, as every Member of the House recognised, that the condition of these deposit contributors is an utterly unjustifiable one. The right hon. Gentleman, I remember, interrupted me while I was speaking and asked me what we would propose. I said that it was not my business to propose, but that if I were on that bench I would be glad to do so.

I do not think the House in the least realises what this Bill means from the financial side. The right hon. Gentleman always states the matter in connection with the old age pensions. When these two schemes are in full operation, the amount of money which will be deposited in this way will be, I have not made a calculation of what then will be the amount of the National Debt, — I think, two or three times the annual charge on our National Debt. I am sure it will amount to a larger sum of money than the whole of the revenue of any country in the world except the first six or seven great countries. I speak of the whole of the money dealt with. It is a prodigious sum and surely worth while spending a little time on to be assured that it is dealt with in the best manner. There is something else to be said. The right hon. Gentleman has always spoken of the charge of those two burdens on the State as something like £18,000,000. It is nothing like that, and he knows it. Take old age pensions alone. They began under the present Prime Minister at £6,000,000. That amount has now doubled. [AN HON. MEMBER: More than doubled.] More than doubled, but that is only the beginning. Thirty years hence that charge will be more than double what it is now. That is not an estimate.

[AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!] Hon. Members below the gangway misunderstand my argument. I do not say the money is not well spent. All I say is that we should realise what the amount of it is. This is not an estimate. It does not depend upon the growth of the population. Our population thirty years hence may be precisely as to-day, yet the charge for old age pensions will be doubled. [AN HON. MEMBER: How?] I think that ought to be pretty

obvious. It is obvious to those who have followed the subject. It depends upon the number of people born at the time which will bring them under the Pension Act, and it will depend upon the mortality rate. The number of people born forty years ago who will become old age pensioners thirty years hence, coupled with the steady decrease in the rate of mortality, means that there will be double the charge whatever happens.

The Old Age Pension Act is a fact. I do not suggest that any change should be made about it. The country has got to face the burden. But surely, as men of common sense, anyone responsible for this new scheme would say, inasmuch as the old age pensions are rolling up a debt for posterity, it is our duty in this scheme to see that we pay our full share to-day; and if there is any shifting of the scale, it should be in favour of coming generations and against ourselves. Is that not common sense? That is naturally what would have been done if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given his honest 2d. a week from the beginning in the same way as the employer and the employed have given theirs. He does not do it. I can conceive no earthly reason why, except that by his present method he is able to say that the State is giving 2d. when it is giving nothing of the kind. Had this Bill been introduced by any other Minister except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it his duty to do so, and we have all thought it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look after the stability of the national finances, whatever else might have been done, this Bill would not have been financed in the way it has been financed. In private business the method which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted is everywhere recognised as the most rotten method that anyone could conceive. It is the method adopted by directors of companies who pay big dividends without looking at the liabilities which they know are confronting them. It is the method which brings such companies into the Bankruptcy Court, and very often brings the directors to the prison cell. . . .

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has squared hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. That is not a very difficult thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury is one of the most astute politicians we have got, and he made some remarks at the annual meeting of the Liberal party which I think were very instructive. They were to this effect. I have got his actual words if necessary. "I think it is to our interest as a party that the Labour party should be quite independent of us in the constituencies, but their co-operation in the House has been most useful and most fruitful." In other words, let them appear to be independent outside, but let them be in our pockets inside. That is an ideal arrangement, but I do not think it will last long. He squared these Gentlemen, and surely they are easily squared....

At the Hull election in June the following leaflet was sent by the Liberal headquarters to that election, and I have made inquiries about it. Until after that no leaflet of any kind against the Insurance Bill was sent from our central office. What is this leaflet? It is the picture of a workingman ill in bed and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a copy of the Insurance Bill. If you look only at the picture we have no reason to take offence, but I think the right hon. Gentleman could bring a successful action against the artist, because looking at the picture alone one would be more inclined to think he had come to pick his pocket. That was not, of course, the intention of the picture, and this is what it said, "The Dawn of Hope." And this is the moral of it, "Support the Liberal Government."

That is the Gentleman who accuses us of using the Insurance Bill for electioneering purposes. Obviously that was not the reason for the second nature coming into play. We all know it is one of the penalties the country has to pay for having a Government in office and not in power. They have signed their bond. For two years they have been allowed to swagger about like free agents, but next year the bond has to be redeemed and for that reason, whatever the effect of the Bill on the millions of people in this

country, it must be shoved aside so that the bond may be paid. Now the right hon. Gentleman is coming to prophesy about the future. He gave a hint of it to-night at the end of his speech. He put it more clearly in his sermon at the Tabernacle. He says that we who are refusing to shut our eyes and open our mouths and swallow whatever he gives us I am not giving his exact words will be praying soon for the cloud of oblivion to come down and cover our heads. That is the prophecy. Carlyle once said, "You cannot argue with a prophet. You can only refuse to believe him." I do refuse to believe him. I have never, certainly in my time in this House, given any vote with more absolute certainty that I was consulting the best interests of the country than I shall give to-night, and if a cloud of oblivion is required, it will not be for those who have decided in, as near as I can recall, the words of the Amendment that this Bill is unequal in its operation and should be further considered by this House.

Extract 92

FINAL PLEA FOR NATIONAL INSURANCE

(Mr. H. H. Asquith, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Commons, December 6, 1911)

MR. ASQUITH 1: . . Here is a great party on a great occasion dealing with a great Bill, and they are going to follow their leader and say neither "Yes" nor "No." That is the new programme of the Tory party. I wish them joy of it. The right hon. Gentleman must give me leave to say to him that peoples' intentions are to be judged not by the motives which in the more or less nebular background operate upon their minds. They must be judged by the consequences of their conduct. All this lip service and zeal for insurance against sickness and unemployment, all this loud-mouthed

1 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Commons, vol. 32, col. 1518 sqq.