1899.] Old Age Pensions. [97
of their fulfilment, but each side wished to throw upon its opponents the unpleasant duty of explaining this fact. A mass of evidence had been taken on the subject, but it all pointed to the impracticability of the schemes proposed, but it was only natural that the Opposition should affect indignation that the Government could not legislate without further inquiry. The Government probably wished to do something, but they hardly knew what, except that they would not risk their chances at the next election by proposing a scheme of which the cost would fall on the voters for the benefit of the non- voters . There were several schemes from rival philanthropists before the House, and their respective authors doubtless regarded them as panaceas. The Government therefore moved for a committee to consider and report upon the best means of improving the condition of the aged and deserving poor, and of providing for those of them who were helpless and infirm, and to inquire whether any bills- dealing with old-age pension, and submitted to Parliament this session, could with advantage be adopted. Mr. Asquith, on behalf of the Opposition, said that he and his friends had always recognised the urgency and gravity of this problem ; but many of them were not satisfied that any scheme yet put forward was both practical and adequate. He went on to attack Mr. Cham- berlain for having tried to make party capital out of old-age pensions, and promptly endeavoured to make capital out of his rival's failure. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in support of the motion, said that it was not in the power of anybody to propose a final scheme at the present time, and that whatever might be done must be regarded as largely experimental. The proposed committee would enter upon this inquiry with a great advantage, previous inquiries having cleared the way. He went on to say that for his own part ne had only invited discussion on the subject, and had made " a proposal " of his own. To which Mr. Asquith retorted that the proposal in question was sufficient to maintain an action for breach of promise. Mr. Lecky (Dublin University) followed in a weighty speech, urging that this ques- tion of pension was one of the most dangerous that could be raised. It meant the undertaking of an obligation which could not be met in the event of anyone of several possible contingencies, and could not be left unfulfilled without provoking a social catas- trophe. Mr. Logan (Market Harborough, Leicester), a Eadical "forward/' was by no means deterred by this warning, and moved an amendment declaring that the further inquiry could shed no more light on the subject, and called upon the Govern- ment to make such proposals as they deemed good. Mr. Balfour, while opposing the amendment, explained that the Government would not consider themselves bound to wait for the report of the new committee before bringing forward a scheme of their own, of which they would accept the responsibility. The appointment of the committee was then agreed to by 263 to 93 votes, but the actual nomination gave rise to considerable discussion (May 1),
