23 MAY 1925, Page 2

* * * * Mr. Wheatley, who moved the rejection

of the Bill, was sarcastic and sardonic. There was evidently to be " a heartless paper reduction " of the unemployed- People would not be given pensions but would have to pay for them. A widow with two children got 28s. now from the Poor Law. The Bill would cut her off with 18s. This was surely a " fraud "—the woman had expected 18s. extra. She would still have to go on the rates for her support. Of course, she might work rather than do that, but then the employer would take 10s. off her wages. Mr. Wheatley, in spite of challenges, did not explain why the Trade Union rate of wages would not be operative.