[ 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