[ 
J) 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
** would not recommend any step which would involve increased 
contributions or increased taxation.” The Manchester Unity of 
Oddfellows (Q. 5784, 5790) think that ‘* the contribution at the 
present time is just as high as the ordinary working man can 
afford to pay.” The National Federation of Rural Approved 
Societies (App. XXIX, 19; Q. 11,407-11,418) state that any 
increase of the contribution would not be acceptable either to 
employers or to insured persons. IHinally, the Scottish Board 
of Health say that, having regard to the industrial situation of 
the country, ‘‘ it appears to the Board that an addition to the 
present insurance contribution, for however good an object such 
an addition might be, would be found extremely difficult and 
practically impossible to obtain ’’ (App. CV, 9). In oral evi- 
dence Sir James Leishman added: ‘‘ The condition of the 
country, and I am speaking specially for Scotland, although I 
suppose 1t would apply to England, is from the industrial and 
economic point of view serious. Public burdens are very heavy. 
There has been a recent Act put on the Statute Book which will 
come into operation at the beginning of the year which, in effect, 
adds to the insurance contribution. Having regard to all these 
considerations the Board, which has given very careful and 
sustained consideration to the terms of reference of this Com- 
mission, thought they could not put forward any proposition 
which involved an extra contribution just now ’’ (Q. 24,324). 
“ If you take Scotland especially . . . coal and iron have 
been very bad ; engineering has been bad ; shipbuilding has been 
bad and shipping is bad. There are one or two things such as 
whisky and linoleum which are better. But, broadly speaking, 
Scotland is possibly even harder hit in some respects than 
England. We have had to take into account that point of 
view ’ (Q. 24,325). 
GENERAL CONCLUSION. 
151. In concluding this brief review of the present financial 
burden of the social services, we desire to make it clear that we do 
rot in any way deprecate or condemn either the volume or the 
application of that expenditure. A civilised nation must carry the 
burdens of civilisation ; and prosperity—even material prosperity 
—fulfils itself in many ways. America, for example, though 
devoting great resources to public education and other general 
services, makes little or no public provision for social insurance. 
Being able to pay high rates of wages in consequence of her 
unique economic position, she leaves the provision against the 
individual casualties of life to the personal and voluntary effort of 
her workers. Our country, on the other hand, has chosen, and 
rightly as we think, to make several great schemes of social 
insurance an integral and permanent part of the national life. 
But while this principle may be accepted, it is clearly essential 
that a balance between the expenditure on these schemes and