Commons Sitting of 12 December 1893

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  RESULT FEES IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it the usage under the Irish National School Board to allow results fees when, through an epidemic in the district, the attendance in a particular school has not been up to the requisite average, especially when the requisite average has been obtained in two quarters (though not consecutive) of the same year; and will he mention the cases in which this usage has been departed from, and state the reasons?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,(for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Board of National Education state that there has been no such usage as that referred to in the question, and accordingly no cases affected by such a usage have occurred.

  WASTE MOORLANDS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in connection with the Local Government Bill for Scotland, the Government will consider the expediency of enabling County Councils to acquire waste moorlands in the Highlands at prairie value, for the purposes of forestry, at the same time empowering the County Councils to assess the ratepayers for the necessary operations of planting and maintaining such lands, thus not only improving the climate, but creating work for the people and shelter for stock and game, the whole to be the property of the community in each county respectively?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,: I have already answered the hon. Member in reply to a question on the same subject. I have as yet received no communication from County
  1158
  Councils on the matter, implying that they are desirous of having powers for dealing with afforestation; and in any case the question must be considered irrespective of the Local Government Bill.

  LITTLE BEDWYN LEVEL CROSSING.
  MR. C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Western Railway Company has presented plans for a change in its system between Hunger-ford and Trowbridge from a single to a double line, and whether the plans continue the present level crossing at Little Bedwyn; and whether, if this be so, the Board of Trade have any power to compel the Great Western Railway Company to provide either a bridge or a subway at this crossing?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,: I am informed that plans have been deposited by the Great Western Railway Company in connection with the proposed introduction of a Bill, from which it appears that Parliamentary powers will be sought to lay down an additional line of rails over the level crossing referred to. Under the Standing Orders it will be necessary that a Report from an officer of the Board of Trade upon the proposal of the company should be laid before the Committee on the Bill, but it will rest with the Committee to decide whether the powers sought for should be given.

  RICE DUTIES IN BURMAH.
  MR. TOMLINSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that rice meal is allowed to leave Burmah duty free, whereas all rough and cleaned rice pays a considerable Export Duty, whereby serious damage is done to the rice-milling trade and the hands employed therein; and whether any steps are likely to be taken to remove this trade preference to the prejudice of English trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): Rice flour already pays the same duty on exportation

  1159
  as white rice and cargo rice. Rice bran, which is used principally for feeding cattle and pigs, is not subjected to any duty. The Government of India are opposed to placing duties on articles of export, and desire to abolish the Rice Duty as soon as the finances permit They would probably be unwilling to impose a fresh duty on rice refuse.

  SIRDAR JASMAIR SINGH.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Memorials from Sirdar Jasmair Singh, Chief of Kythal and Arnowli, in the District of Kurnool, in the Punjab, have been addressed to the Secretary of State for India in Council complaining of certain proceedings during his minority; and whether he will lay such Memorials and any Correspondence that has passed between the Government of India and Her Majesty's Government regarding the said Memorials upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No such Memorial as is described in my hon. Friend's question has reached the Secretary of State for India.

  INSTRUCTION FOR YEOMANRY OFFICERS AT ALDERSHOT.
  MR. W. LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Yeomanry officers will be called upon now to work in brigade, it is his intention to arrange for a special class of instruction at the School for Officers at Aldershot?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley) (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN): Until the brigade system is more developed in the Yeomanry it is considered undesirable to make any change in the course of instruction in the Alder-shot School; but the Commandant will be instructed to give every assistance he can to any senior officer desiring instruction in brigade movements.

  KIRKDALE PRISON, LIVERPOOL.
  MR. W. LONG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has decided upon the demolition of Kirkdale Prison, Liverpool; and, if so,
  1160
  whether he intends to commence the work at once?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The disposal of Kirkdale Prison is in the hands of a surveyor at present, and conditions of sale, &c, are being arranged under his advice by the Treasury Solicitor. When this is settled, the next step will be to arrange when the sale should be undertaken, in view of the best price being obtained. I believe this will not be until some time next year. It has been decided that the Corporation are to have full opportunities for acquiring the property if they think fit.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the Correspondence between Shipowners, Chambers of Commerce, Mr. T. R. Wigham, Members of Parliament, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Trinity House, the Board of Trade, and others on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants which has taken place since the issue of the last Return on the subject (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 92, of 27th February, 1893)?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Correspondence was published up to 24th February, 1893, and that which has ensued has not been such as to justify the cost incident on the printing and presentation to Parliament. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with copies for his own use.

  ALLOTMENT PAYMENTS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to give effect to the promise given some time since that allotments in the naval ports should be payable at post offices instead of at the dockyards?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,: This question is one on which difference of opinion exists among those who have worked the present system. It has been decided to appoint a Committee to visit the ports where allotments are made and inquire into the subject.
  MR. KEARLEY: Has the Committee yet been appointed?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No, Sir.
  MR. KEARLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any information as to the character of the proposed Committee?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I can give no further information to my hon. Friend.

  TIMBERSCOMBE NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education will he explain why it is that, in the case of the Timberscom be national school in the County of Somerset, the Education Department has refused the £10 grant under Article 105 of the Code, notwithstanding that the grant was recommended by Her Majesty's Inspector, and that the expenditure of the school was greater than the income by £25?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York,: This school has an annual endowment of £50, and has also gained over £20 by the substitution of fee grant for fees. There are no voluntary contributions at all. Such a case is not of those which were intended to be met by the Article in question.

  SICK LEAVE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether various appointments have recently been made to the posts of assistant clerks and abstractors in the Civil Service under an Order in Council of 4th June, 1870; whether all persons appointed under that Order in Council have hitherto been held to be entitled in the event of sickness (unless the contrary was duly stated in the terms of their appointment) to full pay for a continuous period of absence not exceeding six months in any one year; and, if so, under what Order in Council or other authority certain Public Departments have in some cases entirely suspended payment of, and in others made deductions from, the salaries of assistant clerks or abstractors after periods of absence on account of sickness varying from four to six weeks; and, in the event of any fresh regulations governing sick leave in Public Departments having been issued, whether he
  1162
  will inform the House of the date of such Regulations?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,: My hon. Friend's first paragraph is correct, but as regards the other matters he is under a misapprehension. The Order in Council of June 4, 1870, lays down no rule as to sick leave. Rules for the higher grades of the Service and for the Second Division are laid down by the Orders in Council of August 15 and March.21, 1890, respectively. The conditions of employment as abstractor or assistant clerk are not laid down by Order in Council, but by Treasury authority, and within the limit of six weeks laid down by the Treasury Heads of Departments have absolute discretion in allowing sick leave to such persons. I am hot aware of any intention to issue new Rules on the subject.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP AND THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  MR. LEON (Bucks, N.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, until recently, places of worship, either belonging to the Establishment or to Nonconformists, have been assessed to the Inhabited House Duty; whether they have been so assessed by Local Authorities, or under the authority of the Inland Revenue Department; and whether such assessments are required or authorised by law?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,: As I understand it, the rule is that places of worship, exclusively used as such, are not liable to the Inhabited House Duty. If the hon. Member will bring under my notice any case in which a charge has been made, I will cause inquiry to be made into the facts.

  FISH POISONING IN THE RIVER DOON.
  MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the poisoning of fish in the River Doon still continues, and that on Saturday the 2nd and Sunday the 3rd instant, fish were found dead at various points of the river; whether he has any information of any civil action being raised with reference to the previous poisoning of the river; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have not had my attention called to the continuation of the poisoning of fish in the River Doon, and, on inquiry, I find that the Fishery Board have no information as to any civil proceedings in connection with the previous case referred to by the hon. Member. I accordingly propose to remit the matter to the Board for inquiry and report.

  THE HERBERTSHIRE EXPLOSION.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report on the Herbertshire explosion has yet been published, or when it may be expected to appear?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Report is, I understand, in type and ready for the press, and only awaiting a revise of the plans, which was promised by the lithographers for yesterday, and which will doubtless be received in the course of to-day.

  FEES ON MAGISTERIAL QUALIFICATION.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the appointment of the Justices of the Peace who have been on the Commission for the Counties of Lanark and Renfrew, but who have been nominated for the County of the City of Glasgow, a fee of 10s. is charged on qualifying; and whether, considering the position is one of transference in the interest of the new County of the City of Glasgow, this fee is legal?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Clerk of the Peace informs me that the fee of 10s. charged in connection with the appointment of Justice of the Peace for the County of the City of Glasgow is the fee which is charged to cover the trouble to which the clerk is put in connection with the appointment and the swearing in and induction into office— which is the same in the case of a transference as in the case of an original appointment. The Clerk of the Peace has not informed me on what statutory or other authority this fee is exacted, and I have written again on this point.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Is a similar charge made in other counties? And, if so, what is the amount?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If my hon. Friend will move for a Return, I
  1164
  will consider if it can be granted. I may, too, refer my hon. Friend to an answer given by the Attorney General of the late Government as to Magistrates appointed for the City of London.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE BORRISOKANE UNION.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received from the Borrisokane Board of Guardians the Report of their engineer with reference to the proposed scheme for labourers' cottages in the Union, and giving details as to the condition of the houses in Borrisokane and Cloughjordan, which the Local Government Board fnspector mentioned in his Report as capable of being repaired, and on which ground he rejected most of the cottages proposed to be built for the labourers; whether in the majority of cases the Guardians' engineer reports the houses as " unfit to be repaired," and in the case of five houses which could be repaired, according to his estimate the avurage cost would be £54 per house; whether the Report entirely contradicts the statement of Inspector Burke as regards the want of water for some of the sites fixed on for the Cloughjordan cottages, the engineer guaranteeing a sufficient supply —namely, within a distance of 50 yards from one house and 100 yards from another, where the Inspector reported no water convenient; and whether now, with the knowledge of these facts, the Local Government Board will reconsider the matter, and sanction the Guardians in carrying out their original scheme, adopted on the Report of their sanitary officers and supported by their evidence at the inquiry, or whether they will at least consider this Report from an independent engineer as sufficient ground for granting the further inquiry which the Guardians have already asked for?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Local Government Board have not yet received the Report referred to in the question; on its receipt they will give the matter their careful consideration.

  THE LYDD LIFEBOAT.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the

  1165
  Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lifeboat at Lydd capsized recently, drowning four of the crew; how many times this boat has capsized, and how many men have been drowned in consequence; whether this boat has been removed, and what compensation the Lifeboat Institution, which sent the men to sea in this untrustworthy boat, will pay to the relatives; how many of the National Lifeboat Institution's boats have capsized during the past 10 years, and how many lives were lost in each case; and is it correct that the lifeboats of the " Norfolk" and " Suffolk" type have never capsized?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have obtained, by the courtesy of the Institution, information on the questions raised by the hon. Member, and I shall be happy to furnish him with a copy of a letter which I have received, in which his statements are traversed; but the National Lifeboat Institution is not under my direction, and I cannot undertake to answer further questions.

  RATING QUALIFICATIONS FOR GUARDIANS.
  MR. P. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 21st January, 1892, the Board of Guardians of the Manor-hamilton Union adopted a resolution calling on the Local Government Board for Ireland to reduce the rating qualification of Guardian in the Union from £20 to £10; can he state why, up to the present, the Local Government Board have neglected to comply with the request of the Guardians; is he aware that in several Electoral Divisions of the Union there is no resident ratepayer qualified and willing to act as Guardian; and will he, in accordance with the resolution of the Board, be good enough to have the rating qualification reduced in time to permit of the change taking effect at the next election for Guardians in the Union?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLET): It is a fact that the Guardians of this Union in January, 1892, adopted a resolution asking the Local Government Board to reduce the qualification for the office of Guardian from £20 to £15; but the Board having obtained a Return of the number of persons in the Union eligible
  1166
  for the position of Guardian on the existing qualification, informed the Guardians that they were not prepared to accede to their request. It appears from the Return referred to that in four out of the 22 Divisions of the Union the number of persons rated at £20 is under five, but I am informed that it is not the fact that in none of these four is there no person qualified. As I stated on Thursday last, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, the question of making a general reduction in the qualification for the office of Guardian in all the unions in Ireland is at present under consideration.
  MR. P. M'HUGH: Will a decision be arrived at in time to permit advantage being taken of it at the next election?
  MR. BRYCE: I believe it is hoped to arrive at some further decision upon the general question in time for that.

  TRALEB AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any information as to the inquiry instituted into the affairs of the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Report of the engineer appointed to inquire into the condition of the line was received two or three days ago, and is now under consideration.

  LABOUR ON THE "MAJESTIC."
  MR. W. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty will he explain on what grounds the Chief Constructor of Portsmouth Dockyard has given orders to Mr. Woolven, his assistant, that no fitter, changeman, or leading - man is to be employed on board the Majestic, now being laid down; and why Mr. Aslett, an Assistant Constructor, has also received orders from the Chief that no fitters are to be employed on board the Eclipse? At the same time, I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will explain why it is that in Her Majesty's Dockyard at Portsmouth the labour of skilled engineers on warships in course of construction is being gradually displaced by that of shipwrights, who are not practical engineers?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: My reply to the first question is that the Chief Con-

  1167
  structor has not given any orders to Mr. Woolven with reference to the employment of fitters on the Majestic, nor has he made any arrangements respecting their work on the Eclipse with Mr. Aslett. With reference to the second question, there has been no variation in the practice at this yard in the arrangements as regards the distribution of work between shipwrights and fitters.

  THE MINERS' FEDERATION AND "CONTRACTING OUT."
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a resolution recently passed by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain respecting the Employers' Liability Bill; and, if so, whether he can state its purport or terms?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir. The resolution repudiated the authority of a deputation which had recently visited London and had an interview with Lord Salisbury, and which purported to speak for the Miners' Permanent Relief Society, to represent the miners, and urged the Government to resist the insertion in the Bill of any clause permitting contracting out.

  OPIUM EXPORTS FOR INDIA.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can give the figures of opium exported from India to China during each of the months of June, July, August, September, and October, 1893, and the figures for the same months in 1892?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The exports of opium from India to China were:—June, 1892, 4,364 chests; 1893, 3,263 chests. July, 1892, 6,216 chests; 1893, 3,382 chests. August, 1892, 6,367 chests; 1893, 4,453 chests. September, 1892, 6,982 chests; 1893, 4,321 chests. October, 1892, 5,619 chests. The Returns for October, 1893, have not yet reached the India Office.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any reply has been received from the Chartered Company to the letter of the Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting the recent cattle raidings and
  1168
  land seizures in Matabeleland by the agents of that Company; and, if so, what is its nature; whether the House may be satisfied that these land seizures and any other such proceedings will be treated by the Government as of no effect when they are considering and deciding on the political settlement of Matabeleland; whether full information as to the details of the conduct of hostilities and the subsequent proceedings will be placed before the House at an early date; and whether particulars of the proposed political settlement will be in the hands of Members for a reasonable interval before any Vote is asked for next Session?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,: In regard to the first question, we could not as yet have received an answer. We have just received the following telegram from Sir H. Loch, in reply to our telegram which I quoted yesterday:—
  "I am not aware of starvation amongst Matabele, but they are told to go back to their kraals to plough and raise grain for next season. Buluwayo kraal has ceased to exist, Lobengula having burnt it. I objected to laying down arms being considered as a condition of submission, and desired the order to be dealt with in a liberal spirit; I shall repeat my instructions under this head. From reports I receive I gather Matabele are returning in small parties, but are deterred from doing so en masse for fear of Lobengula's possible return. Cattle taken by British South Africa Company are, I am informed, the King's, not the people's, and their capture is best evidence to Matabele that he has been beaten, as they are the symbol of a Chiefs authority. I have no knowledge of townships being marked out, or any interference with kraals. I will, however, give instructions to Jameson at once that neither is to be done pending "arrangements approved of by Her Majesty's Government."
  The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. One of our main objects, when considering the proposals for a settlement that will be placed before us, will be to secure that the rights and interests of the natives are properly safeguarded, and that they remain in possession of land, water, and cattle, sufficient for their independent support. As regards the third and fourth questions, further Papers, and—if carried through by that time—the Papers relating to the political settlement of Matabeleland, will be presented to Parliament in ample time before any Vote is taken.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate carrying out this scheme of taking away from all persons all land beyond the absolute requirements of individuals in England as well as in Africa?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I would suggest that the hon. Member had better address the question to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the High Commissioner for South Africa receives any, and, if so, what, remuneration from the Imperial Government; is his salary as High Commissioner paid proportionately by the South African Colonies or by one colony alone; and if the Imperial Government pays no portion of his salary as High Commissioner, and it is paid by one colony alone, what are the precedents for such a course?
  MR. S. BUXTON: (1.) Sir Henry Loch receives £1,000 a year personal allowance from Imperial funds. (2.) His salary as High Commissioner is paid from the Cape Revenues alone. (3.) From the first establishment of the High Commissionership at the Cape a salary has been paid by the Cape Colony—formerly £1,000 a year, but since 1889 £3,000 a year. Sir Bartle Frere between 1887 and 1880 received, in addition, £2,000 a year from Imperial funds as salary. The High Commissioner for South East Africa—an office held for short periods by Lord Wolseley and Sir George Colley, and now abolished—was paid £2,000 a year from Imperial funds. There is no precedent for two or more colonies uniting in paying a salary to a High Commissioner. The High Commissioner of Cyprus is paid from Cyprus funds £3,000 a year. The High Commissioner of the Western Pacific is paid a salary of £300 a year from Imperial funds and nothing as such from Colonial funds. Sir Cecil Smith, as High Commissioner of Borneo, was paid no salary.

  ALLOTMENTS RETURN.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  1170
  Agriculture whether he will grant a Return of the number of allotments under one acre detached from cottages, in continuation of the Return obtained for the Board of Agriculture, and dated July 18, 1890?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The preparation of a new Return of Allotments would involve very considerable labour and expense, and I scarcely think that a sufficient interval has as yet elapsed to justify its issue. I shall, however, be glad to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member, and to confer with my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject.

  THE NAVAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  LORD G. HAMILTONhad given notice to ask the First Lord of the Treasury,
  "If the Government still adhere to their refusa to make a statement on the condition of the Navy before the Christmas Holidays?"
  The noble Lord said, I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot, in the absence of the Prime Minister, answer my question. As the matter is one of great importance, and in order to bring it to a head, I beg to give notice of the following Resolution which I will place on the Notice Paper:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, for the maintenance of the security of the country and the continued protection of British interests and commerce, that considerable addition should at once be made to the Navy; this House, therefore, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make before the Christmas Recess a statement of their intentions, in order that immediate action may be taken thereon."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the notice of my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex, I beg to give notice that on Thursday I shall ask the Government what course they propose to take with regard to the matter.

  FORESTRY IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAGUIRE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government is prepared to grant, out of the funds voted for re-afforesting in Ireland,

  1171
  a sum sufficient to start the planting of willow and osiers in suitable localities; and whether instructions will be issued to the Congested Districts Board to immediately promote this reproductive industry?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Conjested Districts Board have already planted about two acres of land in the County of Galway with osiers, as an experiment, and are willing to consider any scheme submitted to them relative to the development of osier cultivation, and—having due regard to other claims upon the Board's resources—to assist in developing any such schemes which, in their opinion, may reasonably be expected to be successful.

  WORK FOR THE DESTITUTE POOR IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAGUIRE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Boards of Guardians have power to purchase or rent land, not exceeding 50 acres for any parish, and to open workshops for setting destitute able-bodied persons to work, and to pay such persons reasonable wages for their labours; and whether a Circular, similar to that issued in England, has been sent the Boards of Guardians in Ireland pointing out the necessity and utility of undertaking reproductive works to give employment where needed?
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board state that Irish Boards of Guardians have no power to take land for the purpose stated in the first paragraph of the question. As regards the second paragraph, the Local Government Board inform me that if the necessity should arise they will issue a Circular to Sanitary Authorities and Boards of Guardians in Ireland drawing attention to any exceptional distress or the condition of the poorer classes. The Board's Inspectors have general instructions to report in the event of distress arising in any of their districts, but up to the present the Board have not received a representation from any Inspector of that nature, excepting in one case which affects a very small area.

  THE IRISH CATTLE TRADE IN THE RECENT GALES.
  MR. MAGUIRE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any official Return has been given of the number of live stock killed and injured in cross-channel traffic during the recent gale; whether any complaints have been received alleging that certain boats were not properly trimmed in cargo; whether any representations have been made respecting undue delay in discharging shipments, and also delay in notifying to stock-owners the conditions of their perishable property; and whether the Government will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of this matter, and of the general conditions of cross-channel transit?
  MR. H. GARDNER: No statistical information is available with regard to the losses of live stock in transit from Ireland to England during the recent gale, but there is no doubt that the losses were of a serious character, and I have caused careful inquiry to be made respecting them. The result goes to show that they were due to the exceptionally heavy weather experienced, and not to any breach of the requirements of our Orders, and I am informed that a similar conclusion was arrived at by the officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who inspected all the vessels on arrival. No complaints or representations have reached me with regard to the matters mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of the question. With respect to the concluding suggestion of my hon. Friend, I may say that a general inquiry into the conditions under which the cross-channel trade in cattle is carried on was instituted in 1889, and I scarcely think that a new investigation at the present time would be productive of any advantage. I should be very glad, however, to consider any specific suggestions or criticisms with regard to the existing Orders which either the hon. Member or any of those interested in this important matter may be in a position to make.

  HEBRIDES POSTAL SERVICE.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will,

  1173
  in conjunction with the Scottish Office, when preparing the Estimates for the coming year, endeavour to fulfil promises already made to improve the steamer and postal services of the numerous islands of Inverness-shire, especially Skye and the Hebrides?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,: I do not know of any promises made to my hon. Friend on this subject that have not been fulfilled. No material alteration of the postal services referred to appears to be required for the coming year. If, however, my hon. Friend has in mind the question of improving the passenger services and affording greater facilities for traffic, the subject would seem to be rather one for the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland. The services are in ordinary course satisfactorily provided for by the contractor, but irregularity is unavoidable in such weather as has recently prevailed in the district.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to fulfil the promise made by him several times during the Session to consider this matter in connection with the annual Estimates?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Member has often brought the matter before me, I know. I have carefully considered the matter; I promised no more.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promise now.

  THE TRUCK ACT.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the manager of the Cairntable Coal Company, Glenbrick, Ayrshire, has prevented grocers' and bakers' vans from entering the village connected with and belonging to the colliery; and has informed a meeting of miners' wives that, unless they purchased their goods from the colliery stores, their husbands would be dismissed; whether this is a violation of the Truck Act; and whether the matter has been reported to the Inspector of Mines for the Western Division of Scotland, and what action he has taken?
  MR. ASQUITH: This matter has been carefully investigated by the Inspector, with the result that it appears that no vans have been prevented from going to the village. The manager did
  1174
  prevent vans from going to a certain row of houses called "Davie Row," near to the colliery, because the cart-road leading to it was claimed to be a private one for the use of the Colliery Company, who maintain the road at their own expense, and he explained to the women living in the row why he had done this. The manager did not inform a meeting of miners' wives that unless they purchased goods from the colliery stores their husbands would be dismissed. The miners' wives and the miners themselves have forwarded to me a statement that the manager in no way interfered with them in regard to their purchasing provisions. So far as I am able to see, there has been no violation of the Truck Act.

  LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in appointing Mr. E. A. Hicks Assistant Inspector at Liverpool Post Office, the terms of the instruction on page 105 of the Postmasters' Book of Instructions were complied with; and what were the special qualifications which secured Mr. Hicks the appointment over several applicants with longer service, and who have had experience of an Inspector's duties?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. Out of a body of more than 500 postmen, all of whom had been invited to apply, only 15 offered themselves as candidates for the appointment, and of these 15 Hicks, who had long acted as head postman, was by far the best qualified.

  ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL, WILLESDEN.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the time tables of the boys' and girls' departments of the St. Andrew's School, Willesden, show that a distinction is made in the education imparted to the scholars who attend as free scholars and those who pay fees; whether, if the time tables make no difference of this kind, such a distinction does in fact exist; and whether the Department are prepared to recognise a discrimination, in reference to the amount of instruction, between scholars who pay and those who do not pay fees, all attending

  1175
  the same department and working in the same standard?
  MR. ACLAND: I understand from the Inspector that the time tables of this school show that a distinction is made between the education given to children who pay fees and the education given to those who do not, and that those who pay fees are taught separately from the free scholars, and are taught additional subjects. I am of opinion that every scholar attending any department of a school should be entitled to all the educational advantages offered in such department, and I will consider this matter, if necessary, in connection with next year's Code.

  THE POOR LAW CLAUSES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  SIR R. PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will be good enough to inform the House how many Memorials or communications he has received officially from Boards of Guardians in favour of the removal from the Local Government Bill of the Poor Law Clauses?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): One hundred and twenty-eight.

  THE LIVERPOOL TROCADERO.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if there is any doubt that the offence with which the manager in the Trocadero case was an indictable offence, the Government will propose the necessary amendment to the law to ensure the certainty of indictments in such cases, and the punishment of such offences by imprisonment without the option of a fine?
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand that this person was indicted for and convicted of the offence of keeping a disorderly house, which is a misdemeanour. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to propose any amendment to the law, nor am I prepared to say (without any reference to this particular case) that there may not be cases in which the offence is sufficiently punished by a fine.
  MR. SNAPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fine which was inflicted is computed to be not more than
  1176
  the profits of one night's keeping of this house, and that the prosecution cost the police alone between £100 and £200?
  MR. CAINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this particular person, found guilty of this misdemeanour, has been known to the police of Liverpool for over 30 years as a keeper of houses of this character?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have seen a statement to the effect mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Snape), but as to my hon. Friend's (Mr. Caine's) question I know nothing. I must point out that the man was not only tried, but ordered to enter into recognisances for his good behaviour, in the sum, I think, of £200. But I really cannot undertake any further discussion on this case, because, as I have already stated to the House, I have no power to interfere with a sentence on the ground that it is inadequate. I have no power to increase it.

  THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any effect has been given or is about to be given to the recommendation of the Committee on Royal Naval Reserves, presided over by Admiral Sir G. Tryon in 1891, that—
  "It would add to the reliability and solidarity of the Force if the 2nd Class Naval Reserve were to embark periodically on a vessel of war;"
  also that the
  "Drill ship now in the Firth of Forth might go to Lerwick for one month in early winter, and the ship on the Clyde to Stornoway"?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The recommendation quoted by my hon. Friend is now under consideration.

  FOREIGN CONTRACT FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the amount of the order given by the Admiralty to a French firm for boilers for Her Majesty's Navy; what were the requirements as to the quality and make of the metal, and the conditions, if any, as to the wages of the French workmen employed; and whether the invention is patented in this country?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It is not desirable in the public interest to name the price given for the set of experimental boilers in question. The requirements were that the make and quality should be of the highest nature. No conditions were made as to workmen. The boilers are patented in this country.

  THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, with a view to adding to the information already in possession of the House with respect to the extent of the prevailing distress consequent on large numbers of workmen being out of employment, he can see his way to issue Circulars to Local Authorities and Trade Union Societies, similar in terms to those issued by the Local Government Board in 1886, and dated respectively 12th and 23rd February?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,: The Local Government Board propose to issue a Circular Letter to the Boards of Guardians to whom the Circular of February 12, 1886, was sent, asking for particulars similar to those applied for in that letter. As to the second matter, as a Labour Department has been established in connection with the Board of Trade, I will communicate with the President of that Board on the subject.

  SIAM.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: In accordance with private notice, I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs why the Papers as to Siam promised yesterday were not circulated to-day, the result being that Members had to draw their information from the French Yellow Book published yesterday. Will a copy of the French Yellow Book be placed in the Library?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,: The Paper was laid on the Table as promised on Monday; but the printer has standing instructions not to issue any copies till he has received notice from the House of Commons that the Paper has actually been laid on the Table. The
  1178
  object of this rule is to ensure that our own Blue Books do not get into the hands of the public till after they have reached Members of the House. But this is an exceptional case, and I regret that, under the circumstances, it did not occur to me to send special instructions to the printer to suspend the ordinary rule. I am informed that the Papers will be here before 4 o'clock, and there-will be no objection to placing a copy of the French Yellow Book in the Library when we receive it.

  FRANCE (ANARCHIST CRIME IN THE; CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES).
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERacquainted the House that, in pursuance of instructions received during the sitting of the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker had communicated a record of statements made in this House, accompanied by the following-letter, to the President of the Chamber of Deputies in France—
  "11th December, 1893.
  "Sir,
  I have the honour of communicating to you, as President of the Chamber of Deputies of France, the following account of what has passed in the House of Commons in regard to the recent lamentable event in the Chamber, and to assure you of the unanimity of feeling which has been elicited by the occurrence both in this House and in the country.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "Arthur W. Peel,
  "Speaker.
  "A Monsieur Le President de la
  Chambre des Deputés,
  Paris."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,: The Government are of opinion that this House will not be willing that the outrage recently committed upon the great representative Assembly of a friendly nation should pass without notice. I wish, therefore, to state that, with the approval of this House, a fitting communication will be made to the French Chamber and their President, expressing the sympathy of the House of Commons on this occasion and their horror at the crime which has been perpetrated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may perhaps be allowed to express, on behalf of my

  1179
  friends as well as myself, our entire agreement in the step which the Government proposes to take. We think that they have been well advised in taking this action. Though every man in this House, to whatever Party he may belong, has but one feeling on a subject of this kind, I should be sorry to allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without some word of concurrence from me. I am sure that the great Assembly within whose walls the outrage was committed may rest assured that behind the more or less formal message which I presume will be sent to them there is the warmest feeling of sympathy, respect, and regard on the part of all those who in this country are like them performing the work incumbent on the representatives of a free people. I do not think it is necessary for us to add a single word to the suggestion which has come from the Government. We are unanimous on this question, and I am grateful to the Government for having taken the course which they have suggested.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That Mr. Speaker's letter, with a record of the sentiments of sympathy and respect expressed in the House and communicated to the President of the Chamber of Deputies in France, be entered on the Journal of the House.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  DEATHS AND SUICIDES DUE TO STARVATION.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE*MR. KEIR-HARDIE, Member for the Southern Division of West Ham, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, " the number of deaths and suicides due to starvation, and to the causes responsible therefor; " but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Deputy Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, that in the notice he issued to hon. Members inviting them to support him in asking leave to move the Adjournment, the increase
  1180
  of pauperism was one of the things to which he stated he proposed to call attention, but it had been suggested to him that that subject should be eliminated from the Motion, and, of course, he at once bowed to the decision of the authorities of the House. They, therefore, were being asked that day only to consider the question of deaths and suicides due to starvation, and the causes responsible therefor. It was a very difficult matter to obtain definite information regarding the number of people who had died of starvation. There was a Parliamentary Return made to the House in respect of the Metropolis, and according to that the number of people who died of starvation, and were certified to have so died by coroners' inquests, was as follows: In 1891 the number certified was 30; in 1892 the number was 31. They had not the official figures for 1893, but he had carefully collected figures from the newspapers, and these showed the number of deaths from starvation, and of suicides through fear of starvation in all parts of the country this year was over one per day. Ruskin, as far back as 1869, spoke of the approaching struggle between wealth and pauperism, and it was to call attention to that struggle that he had taken this step of moving the Adjournment of the House. He made no apology for intruding this question between the House and the business upon which it was engaged, because this was a question which affected the wellbeing of the people, and, therefore, it should take precedence over all other questions. The figures published by the Local Government Board showed that there was a general increase of pauperism all over the country, with the exception of one district, as compared with last year. Taking the week ending September 4, 1892, and comparing it with the same week this year, they found an increase of over 2 per cent., while the population had only increased 1·1 per cent. In the Metropolis the increase was 9·6 per cent., in the Eastern Division 7·1 per cent., in the North-Western 10·4, and in the York Division 9·0 per cent. These were the actual figures showing the increase in the number of the dependent poor—the class of people who died of starvation. The responsibility for this increase was difficult to fix. It, would be said, no doubt, that one reason for the increase in pauperism was

  1181
  the lock-out in the coal trade. He admitted that to a limited extent in different parts of the country it was correct to say that an increase of pauperism had been due to the lock-out in the coal trade; but in the Northern Divisions of England— including Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, where the lock-out actually produced benefit, because the miners remained at work; in those districts the increase in pauperism was 12·6 per cent., and of able-bodied paupers 30·2 per cent. One noticeable feature in connection with the increase was the very large increase in the proportion of able-bodied paupers in the Metropolis as compared with indoor paupers who received relief between September of this year and September of last year. It was no less than 7,624 persons. This was a serious state of matters, calling for the attention of the House. When they came to consider the causes responsible for the destitution, at once they found that the number of persons out of work was the direct cause of so many being added to the poor rate and of so many persons committing suicide. The remedies hitherto suggested had been inadequate to cope with the difficulty. The growth of pauperism and the number of suicides and cases of starvation were almost in exact proportion to the number of persons out of work. Suicides were highest in the Metropolis, and it was here that the largest number of men and women were out of work. In London there were 100,000 men out of employment and 50,000 only casually and insufficiently employed; in Birmingham there were 5,000 men out of work; Barrow-in-Furness, 5,000; Hull, 7,000; Sheffield, 5,000; and Liverpool, 3,000. In all the agricultural counties the proportion of labourers permanently out of employment was from 3 to 8 per cent. One labourer had written to him—
  "For God's sake do something to bring the idle land and the idle labourers together, and prevent our children from dying of starvation! "
  As an instance of the great destitution in London, he might mention that one firm of bill-posters advertised for 300 men to carry boards at 2s. 6d. a day, and received 1,220 applications from men, which included skilled artisans, clerks, agricultural labourers, and general labourers, one coalheaver, one ex-captain in the Army, and one ex-Bible reader.
  1182
  At least one person was known to have died each day in the country from starvation, and there must be many others of which they heard nothing and which never came to the surface; and in his opinion the House could set its baud to no higher work than that of finding some way out of the terrible state of affairs in which they were involved. And now he came to ask: What could the Government do to prevent people from dying of starvation or of committing suicide through fear of starvation? The Government might say that they could not do anything; and if that were endorsed by the House some other way would require to be found of getting something done; but they had a right to look to the Government of this mighty Empire to solve this problem. A reference had been made this afternoon to the outrage in the French Chamber. Like every other hon. Member, he deplored the fact that men should commit acts of that kind; but, looking a little deeper, he asked whether there was not in London, and in every great centre of population, a soil in which anarchy had its root? Were they not manufacturing persons of that type by leaving them destitute and miserable, and then telling them they could not do anything for them? He admitted that the question would not be settled until they had learned to organise industry on some systematic basis, when a Department of Government—as it would one day—would be fully occupied in altering and adjusting the industry of the nation so that no willing man would be left destitute, and no child would die of starvation because its father could not earn a living for it. Until that time came there was much that might be done. One thing could and should be done at once. And that was: the Government could establish an eight-hour day in every Government factory and workshop, and they could prohibit all overtime. Another suggestion he would make was to place the men engaged in transit by road, rail, or canal under the operation of the Act for shortening the hours of labour. There were 700,000 men employed in the carrying trades of the country, and it was a moderate assumption to say that these men worked on an average 12 hours a day. One firm of omnibus owners in London

  1183
  had drivers and conductors who worked for 17 hours out of the 24, and there were men living in the same building, separated by a brick, working 17 hours a day, while others were altogether idle and destitute. It should not pass the wit of that House to devise means to prevent one man from being killed by overwork while another was dying of starvation through lack of work. The shortening of the hours to eight would find immediate employment for 300,000 men. Doubtless, it would be suggested that emigration should be promoted. Emigration had taken away this year 203,044 persons from these shores; and if this exodus was not sufficient to meet the evil then he did not think that the House ought to countenance the compulsory expatriation of British citizens to foreign lands. There were plenty of unfilled acres in this country, and it was nothing short of a shame to speak of sending men abroad while they could be usefully employed at home. At the present day, with more than double the population of 1821, we could only feed 12,000,000 of people with home-grown wheat, as compared with 19,000,000 in the former period. It was for the Government to find out the causes which prevented the land from growing wheat, and to do their best to remove them, no matter how they might run counter to the fetishes of the past. It was a harassing spectacle to see the Agricultural population coming in to compete with the town artizans. If land in England was properly used by a proper system of cultivation it would provide food for four times its present population. He thought he had shown that emigration was no remedy for the evils of which he complained. There was one other thing the Government might do. A scare was being worked up about the naval defences. There would be no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House that, as they were dependent to such a large extent on foreign nations for food supplies, it was absolutely essential that the Navy should be able to protect those supplies against any possible combination of Foreign Powers.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is wandering from the point. The state of the Navy is not material to the Motion.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, he was about to point out that the Government could do something to meet the distress which was the cause of deaths and suicides. They might anticipate the Estimates for next year and at once lay down eight or ten cruisers to be built in different parts of the country. He had been told that the building of such cruisers, at £250,000 each—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must again point out that the state of the Navy has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, he was endeavouring to show that in the building of each of these cruisers 3,000 men would be employed for 18 months or two years, and that if the work were distributed all over the country—in London, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Mersey, at Barrow, and elsewhere— thirty thousand persons would be employed directly and many thousands indirectly, and so kept from destroying themselves or dying of starvation. One other thing might be done. The Board of Trade could, under its statutory powers, set to work to reclaim waste lands. By the Improvement of Land Act of 1864 the landlords had power to borrow money for these purposes; and by the Amending Act of 1866 the Board of Trade had power to deal with foreshores. Something might also be done to make the condition of life in workhouses more agreeable to the veterans of industry, whose only crime was that they were poor. If the Local Government Board were to insist upon proper accommodation being made for the aged poor, work would be provided for many persons. In the workhouse of his own constituency, West Ham, there were 159 more people than it was certified to accommodate. If they tried to provide work in this way, they would have done something to meet the case. The Local Government Board could insist upon this. He had similar figures to those of West Ham from other places, and he thought the Government should insist upon the Poor Law Authorities providing work in the way he had suggested. The Government, by a Circular to Vestries and Local Bodies—a Circular dated the 30th September—had asked the Local Authorities

  1185
  to unravel the labour problem which they themselves were unable to solve, and it was evident from the reply of the Vestry of Paddington to that Circular that it held out delusive hopes of employment. As to the recommendations contained in the Circular, the Vestry pointed out that there were no sewage farms in Paddington; that the laying out of open spaces, recreation grounds, and new cemeteries had been already dealt with, and that as to cleansing of streets, there were no streets in the parish which were not already cleansed other than those which had not yet been taken over by the parish. The Local Authorities had refused to act, or were unable to do so, and had thrown the responsibility on the Government. If the Government were going to ask the Local Authorities, at a great cost to the ratepayers, to find work for the unemployed, the Government ought to set the example. It could, on its own initiative, and without any legislation, provide work for thousands of men of a productive and useful kind; whereas if the Local Authorities were to undertake at their cost a responsibility of this kind, they would be casting a burden on the ratepayers that would be unbearable. He trusted the House of Commons, charged with the destinies of what they were told was the greatest Empire the world had ever seen, would not sit idle in this matter, and confess their impotence—their incompetence to deal with the simple problem of finding work for the idle many. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but he considered that, with the 8,000 or 10,000 men who that day marched through the streets, it was no laughing matter. It was a question of suicide or starvation. He regretted that hon. Gentlemen should so far have forgotten themselves as to laugh at the statement of these men's misery. [Cries of "No!"] What they sought was work, and the whole problem was to find work for them. Within eight, almost within sound, of this House the moans of the wretched and the groans of the dying might be heard; and he trusted the outcome of this discussion would be to sweep away the disgrace winch attached to this Assembly of refusing to do anything to meet the claims of from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 of British workmen. He begged to move the Resolution.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALDsaid, he desired to support the Resolution, and in doing so he did not propose to deal with any statistics bearing upon the number of suicides or cases of starvation. He would confine himself exclusively to the causes to which this destitution had been traced. In a recent Report of the Labour Department upon the unemployed, the various classes of the unemployed were divided in four; but for all practical purposes the unemployed might be divided into two classes—those who were fit and willing to work, if they could obtain it, and those who were morally and physically unfit for work even if it were abundant. He had read, in addition to the Report issued by the Labour Department, the pamphlet recently issued by the Charity Organisation Society of London, which appeared to him to put one view of the unemployed difficulty with masterly clearness and ability. But he did not agree with the conclusions come to in the pamphlet, mainly because he disputed the grounds on which the views were supported. They started, in the first place, with the assumption that the problem was rather a moral than an economic one. If they looked at the second of the two classes into which the unemployed were divided—namely, those unfit for work, the problem was a moral one; but if they looked at the first class—those who were willing to work but unable to obtain employment—the problem was not a moral, but an economic one. The whole difficulty of the question was that the moral problem imperceptibly shaded into the economic. The solution of the moral problem could be found in an application of the present Poor Law system with such modifications in detail as were necessary to make the treatment of the poor more kindly and humane than it was; but with respect to the economic question that presented the real difficulty, the Government would sooner or later have to pursue two lines of policy—one intended as a temporary resource, and the other as a permanent solution. The Government, in 1886, had adopted a different line of policy, in dealing with the unemployed question, to that which had been continuously adopted since 1834. In 1886 the Local Government Board made a new departure in issuing a Circular to District Boards and Vestries,

  1187
  calling upon them to find work for the unemployed. That was a policy which the Local Authorities declared to be impossible to carry out. He had heard from various parts of the country, and had been told by the Guardians in his own constituency, that when the Local Authorities applied for the sanction of the Department for loans to carry out relief works, their applications were always met in a hesitating and rather repelling manner. The Guardians in his own constituency complained that when they had applied for a loan for this purpose it had been refused. But he desired to say, with reference to this policy of the Government, that it could not, so far as he could see, be permanently successful, even if it could for a moment alleviate distress. It was unjustifiable unless on the ground that the causes were temporary in operation or on the ground that the localities were called on to act merely while a permanent remedy was taking effect; and the question which it seemed to him the House had to discuss was whether or not a permanent remedy really was possible. The question, he knew, was a question of enormous difficulty, and it was a question upon which he, at least, did not care to dogmatise too confidently. But there were two or three suggestions that had been made with reference to this problem upon which he should like to say a word or two. In an interview which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham recently had with a deputation of the unemployed he dealt with two proposed remedies. He had been asked to favour legislation prohibiting the immigration of destitute aliens. Though he (Mr. Macdonald) represented an East End constituency, he had never been able to persuade himself that this immigration was an evil of very great magnitude. He had never heard—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think that would be pertinent to the Question before the House, because the reference to foreign paupers was struck out of the Motion for a reason declared some time ago. The Motion was limited to deaths from starvation and suicides.
  MR. MACDONALDasked if it would be in Order for him to refer to those circumstances in connection with the social life of the people from which the results of suicide and starvation sprung? If
  1188
  Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that he would be out of Order in referring to those circumstances he would be obliged to resume his seat, because he did not know that he had anything to add to the statement made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Keir-Hardie). The question of the foreign immigrant was a question which certainly did excite a great deal of attention in the East End of London, for the reason that this immigrant brought in labour which entered into competition with our own labour and which did, undoubtedly, tend to increase the hardship of life of the people of the East End, which tended to produce that starvation and suicide of which the Motion complained.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think that is in Order.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he supposed,. then, he should not be in Order in referring to the second subject dealt with by the hon. Member for West Birmingham —namely, the extension of our markets abroad in order to give full and ample employment to our people.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think not. Those are two great questions not within the contemplation of this very limited Motion.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would content himself, therefore, with formally seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Keir-Hardie.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston): In the first place, I must congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham on the attention and consideration with which his speech was received by the House. I should like to point out to him that he misinterpreted any smile which he saw on the faces of hon. Members. I am sure that not a single Member of the House for a moment had any thought of levity in reference to this great and serious matter. What did excite a smile on the part of Members was his calling the great problem of how to deal with the unemployed, and how to sweep away the great masses of human misery which he described in such forcible language, a simple problem. He will, I think, admit that it is one of the most complicated questions with which

  1189
  any statesman has to deal. The Motion is confined to deaths from starvation and suicides resulting from destitution. I am sorry that the hon. Member was unable to give us statistics as to these deaths covering a recent period. It is difficult for any private Member—it is difficult, even, for a large Public Department—to obtain information on such a subject up to date, but such figures as I have I will supply the hon. Member with, not for a moment with a view of minimising the contention of the hon. Member that this subject is one that requires attention, but with a view, if possible, of arriving at an understanding as to the actual condition of things. The hon. Member alluded to Returns made of deaths from starvation. Now, the Returns relating to deaths from starvation have been collected for 11 years; and the last Return relates to last year. In looking over those Returns I was much surprised to find that the figures for last year are exceeded by those of six previous years, and that in 1882 the number of deaths from starvation was nearly double that of last year. So that, so far as deaths from starvation are concerned, there is an improvement instead of a retrogression. When the hon. Member spoke about the number of deaths from starvation this year it struck me that he must have been an attentive reader of the newspapers, and that some deaths he has seen mentioned appeared to him to be referable to such causes. But I do not think these cases have been more numerous than on former occasions. The hon. Member's opinion is founded entirely upon a conjectural basis. The figures I have are important. The number of deaths from starvation in the metropolitan area was, for 1891, 30, and in last year's Return was 31, but when those cases are analysed it is found that they differ very much as regards their gravity; for instance, nine out of the 31 cases are those of the deaths of children, and those deaths were due in a large number of instances not so much to want of food as to improper food and neglect. Therefore, they cannot be properly classed as deaths from starvation. And when one comes to the 22 adults, one finds that most were people in the last stages of wasting disease, and at the coroner's inquest it was shown that death was produced not so much by want of food as accelerated by
  1190
  want of food and exposure. I find that last year there were four cases of death practically from starvation—three from starvation alone and one from starvation and exposure. Well, I think that every preventable death from starvation is a disgrace to the community such as every good Government and Local Authority ought to try to prevent.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, that what he had said was that deaths included suicides from fear of starvation, though they were not given in the Return.
  SIR W. FOSTER: That is a point I shall come to in dealing with suicides. I am speaking now of cases of starvation brought under the notice of the Public Authority. I think we may congratulate ourselves on the fact that the cases are so few, but still four persons have died from starvation in this the richest city in the world, and that ought not to have occurred. When such cases come before the Local Government Board we take care to see whether they are due to the neglect of the Local Authorities; if so, they receive the very serious attention of the Local Government Board. But, so far, we have not been able to bring home to the Local Authorities any neglect, and in all cases in which the Local Authorities have been applied to they have taken measures to relieve the distress. The suicides in the metropolitan area were a few larger in number last year than in the preceding year— namely, 452 in 1892 as against 423 in 1891. In England they were 2,583 in 1892 and 2,483 in 1891. When the hon. Member said that one or two deaths occurred daily from suicide I am bound to admit that that opinion is opposed to my own.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: What I said was that there are one and a-half deaths daily from starvation or from suicide through fear of starvation.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Add the deaths from starvation, and suicides from fear of starvation, and I do not think that they will make up anything like that number, and upon that point I must differ from my hon. Friend. He has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to mine. It is a matter which can only be settled at the end of the year, when we have the official statistics before us. These things point to the condition of the population as regards poverty, and the

  1191
  best side lights we can get on that are the figures the hon. Member himself gave the House of pauperism in different parts of the country. We are not going into the question of the administration of the Poor Law or of Poor Law statistics generally; but in illustration of his position, the hon. Member brought forward certain statistics as to pauperism. These statistics have not been brought down quite to the present date, and the conclusions to be derived from them, therefore, are open to some uncertainty. The hon. Member was right when he said that there was an increase of metropolitan pauperism, and that, consequently, distress has gone up considerably during the last few months. In the last week of November, 1893, there were 105,347 persons chargeable on the poor-rate; that was 9,505 more than in 1891. So that there is a considerable increase, and a large number of these are undoubtedly able-bodied persons. There is an increase of about 5,000 out-of-door people chargeable on the rates. That does not mean 5,000 able-bodied men chargeable on the rates, but 5,000 men, women, and children. If one of these men has a wife and five children they go down in the Return as seven. It does not by any means represent the total number of able-bodied men out of employment. I want that to be understood. That is the condition of things in the London district. If we compare that with the condition of things in previous periods, it will be seen that in the preceding 36 years the actual number of paupers has been exceeded seven times—in 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872. It is a remarkable thing that in 1872 there were more paupers chargeable than at the present time during the same period of the year, though the population of the Metropolitan district was then 1,000,000 less than it is now. There were 107,806 paupers in November, 1872, out of a population of 3,300,000, whereas the number now is only 105,000, out of a population of 4,300,000. That shows— as far as these figures can exemplify it— that the general well-being of the people is better now than it was in 1872, and that we are making some progress in the matter. But the figures are more striking if we take the number of paupers in proportion to the population, which I think
  1192
  is the better way of testing the question. At present the proportion per 1,000 chargeable on the poor rates in the metropolitan area is 24·5; last year it was 22·5; in 1891 it was 21·8; in 1890 22·4; in 1889 23·2; in 1884 24·2; and in 1887 25·1. So that in 1887 we had a larger proportion of people chargeable as destitute on the metropolitan rates than we have at the present time. If we go over the proportion for the past 36 years we find that 19 times out of the 36 the present proportion has been exceeded. We have some reason to congratulate ourselves, so far as the metropolitan area is concerned. If we go outside the metropolitan area we find the same state of things existing. The proportion which paupers bore to the population of the country in the last week of the month of November, 1893, was 23·6 per 1,000, which was smaller than in any other year except the three years immediately preceding. It fell to 22·2 in 1891. In 10 out of the years from 1857 to 1870 the proportion was more than 40 per 1,000. If the paupers had borne the same proportion to the population in 1893 as they did in 1863, 1873, and 1883 the numbers would have been, as compared with those years, 1,330,259, 958,814, and 768,258 instead of 702,237, which is the number now. That shows that there is an enormous diminution in the amount of poverty and destitution in the country which comes under the notice of the Poor Law, and that the diminution is progressing, with the exception of occasional rises which are to be deplored. When we look at these figures and look over them carefully it will be seen that though there is much to be regretted there is no occasion for any great alarm. I am led to that conclusion by looking over the lists published by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. It is true that the borough of West Ham, which the hon. Member so well represents, has had a considerable increase in the number of poor chargeable to the rates. The number rose from 20·8 in August to 21 in September, and to 23 per 1,000 in October. In the whole metropolitan area there has been a large increase and a less large increase throughout the rest of the country. But I will call the hon. Member's attention to what he himself referred to as the probable explanation of this.

  1193
  We have had a long-continued depression of trade, which has affected especially the great centres of population, and we have also had several great industrial troubles, and these always weaken the powers of resistance of the poorest class of the population. That has been going on for two or three years, and then on the top of it has come one of the greatest industrial struggles of our time—namely, the lock-out in the coal trade—
  An hon. MEMBER: The strike.
  SIR W. FOSTER: The consequence has been that we have had an increase of pauperism which is not limited to the places where the lock-out took place, but which is felt in London and all over the country. In North Staffordshire 30,000 potters were thrown out of work from the difficulty of getting coal; in Widnes 5,000 chemical workers were in the same condition, and in the iron districts, and wherever coal is required for industrial occupations the pinch of poverty has been felt as much as by the miners in their own districts. Some 2,000,000 of people connected with the coal industry were at one time on the verge of starvation, and there were another 2,000,000 who suffered from the workers being thrown out of employment owing to the same cause. The Government regret that every whit as much as the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment. Therefore, I submit that any figures which we take up should be considered with reference to the various circumstances to which I allude. The hon. Member also went into the question of suicides, but could not give us any figures to support his view. He has said that there have been more suicides during the last 12 months than during the previous 12 months, but that is only a matter of conjecture and not an opinion based on any figures. There have, no doubt to those who read the newspapers, appeared to be a large increase in the number of suicides during the past 12 months, but many of these have been, not among the working classes, but among those who were well-to-do. There have been many cases in which men have put an end to their lives not because of want of work, but because of overwork, the stress and strain of what I may call this telegraphic age having affected their minds and induced
  1194
  them to take their own lives. I am sorry to say there have also been a number of cases of suicide among young people, but these cannot be attributed to want of work. There have also been many suicides among people from emotional circumstances, and such persons, in putting an end to their existence, do not pay much attention to the scarcity of work. I do not think that the figures available show that there has been a greater number of suicides from want of work during the last 12 months than at other periods of our history. The hon. Member has referred to the organisation of labour as a means of getting out of the difficulty, and the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board would do what they can in that direction. In certain parts of London there are Organisations already, and in other districts the Guardians are organising bureaux for labour purposes, and I hope that other bodies will imitate this example. The hon. Member referred to the hours of work of men in Government employ. The Government have promised their sympathetic consideration of the question, and I cannot add to the statement recently made by the Prime Minister that there is a sincere desire and a rather sanguine hope that a reduction may be brought about in the near future. I agree with the horn Member that the hours worked by men engaged in the carrying trade might be shortened with benefit to the men, credit to the community, and profit to the industry. I have great sympathy with him in that desire. He went on to speak of the amount of corn consumed in the country as compared with former times. While I will not follow him into a discussion of the principles of Free Trade and Protection, I sympathise with the hon. Member's desire that the land of the country should be made more productive. I believe it could be made more productive in the way of growing food for the people who till the soil if we increase the facilities which the people have of getting to the soil to till it for themselves. That is a subject which the late Government dealt with in a sympathetic spirit; it is a subject which the present Government, in the Parish Councils Bill, also deals with in a sympathetic spirit. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but we have introduced into it, as far as we have gone,

  1195
  much that will render it easier for men to get access to land. If we can put thousands of the labourers to till allotments there will be less crowding into the towns and less competition at the pit's mouth. There will be a healthier and a stronger race, and greater strength will be added to the Empire than by the vaunted specifics such as Protection, which some hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to favour. The hon. Member went on to say that he wanted certain provisions made as to cultivating waste lands and reclaiming waste land or foreshores. The foreshores are under the Board of Trade, but a portion of the foreshores of the Thames is under the Conservancy Board, and in the metropolitan area something might be done by them in that direction. With reference to the aged poor and the provision of cottage homes for them, that question is under the consideration of a Royal Commission, which I hope will report shortly. I trust that, as a result of that Report and of the action of the Local Government Board, there will be more attempts made to improve the condition not only of the aged poor, but of all the poor. In the direction of classification, I believe we can look for the best reforms, and I think the hon. Member's suggestion about cottage homes for the aged poor is well worthy of attention. The hon. Member referred to the Circular issued by the Local Government Board with reference to public works. That Circular was issued as long ago as September last with the view of pointing out to various Local Bodies how by means of public works a great amount of employment might be afforded to those who were lacking work. So far I hope it has had good results. The Local Government Board has endeavoured to expedite its methods of procedure; and I hope that various kinds of useful work, such as sewerage works, the making of roads, and the building of infirmaries will go on throughout the country during the present period of distress so as to provide employment for the poor. I can assure the hon. Member that the applications that reach us from Local Authorities for loans for such purposes are receiving the earliest attention and the speediest solution on the part of the Local Government Board. Local Bodies, however, differ on this matter. The hon. Member
  1196
  quoted a circular that had been sent out by Paddington. I do not think that circular was very creditable to the Paddington Authorities. It is not for them to tell the Local Government Board that their streets are well kept and that they have no sewage farms in Paddington. [Opposition cries of "Why not?"] We know that as well as they do. When we send out a Circular of this kind we wish it to be received in a sympathetic spirit, and not to be taken too literally. I have no doubt there is other work to be done in Paddington, and if the Local Authorities of Paddington would do what the Poplar Local Authorities are doing they would be carrying out a very useful work. In Poplar they do not write and tell us that their streets are well kept, but they are searching out insanitary dwelling places, and cleaning and whitewashing them, whilst, where the roads are not properly made up, they are having them remade, and so they are throughout their district getting a large amount of sanitary work done by the poor people. They are thus, in a right and sympathetic spirit, endeavouring to meet this great evil. That is the spirit in which we wish Local Authorities to meet the Circular we sent out. The hon. Member referred to an increase in the Navy and to greater activity in the Dockyards. I will not go into that question, but I hope that work will be found in the various places referred to for some of the unemployed. But it must be remembered that it is not generally the skilled artizans of the dockyards who suffer most at these times. Those who suffer generally belong to a class much lower than that, and to a class which at the same time is not fitted, as a rule, for the rough work of farming or for the kind of work done by Local Authorities. So that work undertaken by Local Authorities at these times is not, done by the most skilled labourer. I would still rely in this matter, and would ask my hon. Friend to rely, rather upon the action of Local Authorities than on the action of the Government. I do not myself believe in people coming to the Government at every difficulty. It is not in that way that Englishmen have acted in the past; they have generally been able to meet their own difficulties without coming to the Government for assistance, and I think that is a better

  1197
  and more manly way of proceeding. I would rather see the self-reliance and self-help of Local Authorities called into action on these occasions than see them come to the Central Authority for aid. We have seen in this century more than one disaster caused by the Central Authority undertaking great public works. I believe that when Local Authorities, in face of distress such as I believe exists at present, carry on public works they are using the most productive form of providing employment, because, whilst they relieve the distresses of the poor, they at the same time secure permanent works. I would rather that this were done in the future through the action of Local Authorities than by any Central Body like the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade, because I believe that such action not only develops the duties of citizenship, but strengthens that manly self - reliance which has hitherto been so creditable to the country.
  SIR J. GORST: I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Keir-Hardie) in thinking that there is no subject which more urgently demands at the present moment the attention of the Government and of the House of Commons than this particular matter. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after your ruling that I should be out of Order if I were to enter into the general question of the unemployed, and that my remarks must be restricted to that particular class of the unemployed which exists, unhappily, to perhaps the greatest extent in London of any city in the world, but which exist in every great city both in this country and abroad—even in America and our Colonies —that class of casual labour which lives in a state of chronic hunger and distress, and which furnishes the persons who die of starvation, and who commit suicide from the fear of starvation. I am more anxious to address the House on this question, because I further agree with the hon. Member for West Ham, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Sir W. Foster) in thinking that the subject has now reached a phase when it demands the attention not so much of Local Authorities as of the Central Government and the Central Parliament of the Empire. The cause which leads to the existence of this class of labour is one over
  1198
  which Local Authorities can exercise very little control. The class is created by the continued immigration of labour from the country districts into the great towns, and the evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission on Labour, and which was published not many weeks ago, gives the clearest possible history of such immigration. It is quite hopeless to attempt to stop it. As long as the rural districts are in so very unprosperous a condition, as long as agriculture is depressed as it is now, there is an irresistible temptation to the young rural labourers to immigrate into the towns. The immigration into the towns, so far as they are individually concerned, is a great success in the first instance. They get higher wages at once, and find themselves in a much more prosperous condition than they would have been in had they followed the pursuits of their parents in the country. They prosper for a considerable number of years, but then they are squeezed out of the employment in which they are engaged by the immigration of fresh labourers from the country. The people who employ skilled labour in the towns like to have the youngest and most effective labour they can get, and so they steadily degrade the older men in favour of the newcomers. The older men get into worse-paid situations; they struggle on for a certain number of years, finding life every year more and more difficult, until at last they become casual labourers, and swell the great army of the unemployed in the East End of London, and in almost every great town in the Empire. The members of that great army are in a state of chronic distress. They can scarcely keep their heads above water in prosperous times, and the moment a depression of trade takes place, or any cause lessens employment or reduces wages, they sink into the condition of poverty, hunger, and distress which gives rise to the incidents to which the hon. Member for West Ham has called the attention of the House. Well, I say this is a difficulty which Local Authorities cannot meet. None of the Local Authorities of London, for instance, can produce any effect whatever on the movement of labour from the agricultural districts. It comes in whether they will or not; and all

  1199
  the efforts they make, incited by the Circulars of the Local Government Board—though I do not mean to say that those efforts are not laudable, and do not for the moment alleviate and palliate to some extent the distress which exists— really only increase the evil. The more work you provide in town parishes the more men from the country districts will flock in, and if all the recommendations of the Local Government Board were carried out in their entirety, if every unemployed man in London were set to work during the present season, it would in the long run only aggravate the evil, because more people would in consequence be brought in, and next year you would have a still greater evil to cope with. I know it is often said that a great many of these so-called unemployed people are people who never work. That is quite true. On the outskirts of civilisation you always find a number of people, some of them semi-criminals, who under no circumstances will work. I think Mr. Charles Booth estimates the number of these people in the East End at about 10,000. It is not a very large number, and we are not talking about this class at all this afternoon. We are 'talking about the people who are ready and willing to work, but who cannot find any employment at all. That such a class exists in all our great cities is undoubted. It is proved by statistics and by other evidence. It is a miserable thing for our civilisation, and a thing that is dangerous to the permanence of our civilisation, that a class of people who are in a state of hunger should exist. The hon. Member who has just spoken has discussed some of the remedies which were suggested by the hon. Member for West Ham, and which might be applied to this state of things—
  MR. CAINE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you whether the right hon. Gentleman is not transgressing the ruling you gave when my hon. Friend (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking?
  SIR J. GORST: On the point of Order, I may say I was about to follow the hon. Member the Secretary to the Local Government Board through the various remedies which the hon. Member for West Ham had suggested as applicable to the class of chronically hungry
  1200
  people amongst whom deaths from starvation take place.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must, of course, limit his remarks to that class of people amongst whom deaths from starvation and suicides through fear of starvation occur.
  SIR J. GORST: I am endeavouring to confine myself strictly to that particular class. The first remedy which the hon. Member discussed was one which applies partly to that class and partly to another class, and which it would be entirely out of Order for me to discuss—I mean what he called the organisation of labour by the establishment of registries. Such registries would, to a great extent, be used not by the class of which I am speaking, but by another class, although they would be partly used by the starving unemployed people in the East of London and elsewhere. All I want to say about these registries is that the development of this system of registration of labour is now waiting for the action of the Central Government. There have been registries established by voluntary effort. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I am strictly in Order. I am merely following the Secretary to the Local Government Board.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERwas understood to say that the right hon. Gentle man was not out of Order.
  SIR J. GORST: There have been established labour registries in a great many places, and I understand the Secretary to the Local Government Board approved of them. But the universal testimony is that they are of no use unless the Government, as the Central Authority, will establish a Clearing House. It is to me a matter of surprise that the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade should not attach to the present Labour Department a Central Clearing House to which employers could apply, and which could receive lists of the unemployed sent up by the local registries, and thus clear off a considerable amount of the distress in the country. It is distinctly the Government that is now blocking the way. Until they will move in this matter, nothing more can be done. It requires nothing but a properly organised scheme. This would not need legislation or any, except the most trivial, expenditure of public money, and

  1201
  nothing but organisation. But that is a remedy which will not cure the disease. It will palliate the symptoms and make them, to some extent, less acute, but everybody must recognise that the mere organisation of unemployed labour will not cure the social disease which gives rise to these cases of starvation and suicide. I will not follow the Secretary to the Local Government Board into his second remedy—the diminution of the hours of labour in Government Departments and in the carrying trades. That remedy was suggested and, to a certain extent, improved by the hon. Member for West Ham. I have frequently in this House expressed my opinion on that subject, and I will not trouble hon. Members with them again now. Then the Secretary to the Local Government Board touched upon what I believe is the direction in which the real cure for this social evil is to be sought, and that is the necessity of increasing the growth of food in the country, and somehow or other getting those people who are doing nothing, whose labour is now running to waste, employed upon the land. How that is to be done is a very much controverted question. If I were to express my own ideas in detail I might find myself not altogether in unison with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther). I think everybody in the House will feel that we can never cure the evil to which the hon. Member for West Ham has called attention by keeping the people from the country in the towns. It is one essential condition of success that we should get them out of the towns. How to get them out of the towns is a subject well worthy consideration and discussion in this House. It is not only the land of this country that is open to our unused labour, but there are other lands the inheritances of the people of this country spread all over the world, and to me it was a melancholy reflection the other day when I saw that the coloured population of South Africa—not native— which does all the labour in the eastern and western part of Cape Colony, had bread enough and to spare, whilst the English people—their Imperial masters—are perishing with hunger. Why some statesman or Government should not try means for bringing this perishing labour altogether from our
  1202
  great cities into contact with the land where people may at least grow their food, or where there would be no necessity to die of starvation, is very discreditable to the statesmanship and patriotism of the present day. There are two perfectly distinct opinions on this subject. There are some people—and I am afraid the majority of well-to-do-people—who look upon misery and wretchedness of this class. as inevitable. They quote a text of Scripture, which says the poor is always with us, and they reconcile themselves to the belief that our wealth and prosperity and civilization are always to be accompanied by the existence of a class numbering hundreds of thousands who are to live in a chronic state of hunger and of destitution. If that is true, if the existence of that class is inevitable, it is a very sad drawback to the advantages of our civilization. But such a state of things might be contemplated; it might go on and not cause great calamities to the body politic. There is another view which I share, and that is that this particular disease is a kind of cancer which eats into the social institutions of our country—that the existence of an unemployed class in a state of chronic hunger in our great cities who die of starvation and commit suicide through fear of it is a danger to the continued existence of the civilization to which we belong. If the Government and Parliament of this country do not address themselves to the treatment of this disease, which is a peculiar incident of modern western civilization, then our supineness may be revenged upon us by the spread of this misery and dislocation and disorganization of labour, until it may actually become fatal to the continued existence of the civilisation which we enjoy.
  MR. LOUGHdid not think the House would grudge the short time occupied in the discussion of this important question. It had been admitted that the increase of suicide and starvation was directly traceable to the large number of people out of employment at the present time. The Government were responsible at least for the employment of one large class of people, and it was worth while to consider for a moment whether the dealings of the Government with their workmen had been such as to stave off this misery. The

  1203
  right hon. Gentleman who had replied so effectively on behalf of the Government to the Member for West Ham, spoke very properly of the period of distress through which the country was passing—a distress of which all the industrial classes in the country-had had experience. It did not affect the Government in exactly the same way as it touched employers. No doubt it made the Revenue a little less prosperous, but still they were not so poor that they might not have afforded throughout this period to have treated their working men properly if they really appreciated their claims. The first difficulty the House of Commons had got to deal with was that the facts of the position of these working people were never laid before them in detail, and Members had to obtain the particulars they required in a painful and laborious manner. He had, for instance, been trying for the last five or six months by means of letters, private inquiries and questions in the ,House to find out the details of hard cases brought to his knowledge of workpeople in Government employment, and his efforts had been attended with only a moderate amount of success. He had, however, ascertained that during November at least 100 men had been dismissed from the Government workshops at Woolwich, and in the last 12 months about 1,000 from various establishments. In fact, all through the period of depression, the Government had been dismissing men as if they were private employers, and felt the depression as much as any of those who had to grapple with ordinary trade competition. He could not help regretting that the Government did not give a little more consideration to the position in which men were placed by being thrown on the labour market in such a time as this. He did not allude to this in any Party sense—it was not, indeed, a Party question—but the claims of the working men, who formed so large a proportion of their population, were deserving of consideration. Whilst these men were being dismissed, and whilst this depression existed, there was plenty of work to be done in the various Government workshops. Some two or three weeks since he introduced a deputation to the Secretary of State for War, who came to represent the serious troubles which resulted
  1204
  to them from the dismissals which were going on in the workshops. The right hon. Gentleman made a sympathetic reply, but he hardly dealt with the dismissals at all, which was, however, the serious aspect of the case, the men dismissed going to swell the army of the unemployed, and leading to the starvation and suicide with which the resolution dealt. The Secretary for War told the deputation that it was impossible to avoid the fluctuations of labour, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give facts sufficiently strong to support his contention. For instance, the Government were now manufacturing cordite, and they were only making one ton for every three tons immediately required. Surely men might be employed in larger numbers on its production. Again, a large order from India for cartridges, which had been postponed for financial reasons, might have been put in hand, and this alone would have afforded employment for 12 weeks to 2,000 men; and then the work required by the Naval Programme might have been pushed on. There was much work which might have been put in hand if there had been a desire that this great suffering to the working classes might have been avoided. The fluctuations of which the Secretary for War had spoken might be diminished if the Government Departments would make an effort in this direction, and, if the Government did so, it would be an example to Local Bodies and private employers to avoid those irregularities of employment which caused so much misery, starvation, and even death to the working classes.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,wished to dispel the notion that small holdings and allotments in the country were a remedy for the starvation of the towns. The truth was, that where they had this large number of small holdings, they had less labour employed than where they had land farmed in a large way. To give employment they must have men who had money to put into the land. It was only yesterday that he saw land which was going out of cultivation and labourers standing by bewailing their hard lot; and they said when they heard Members of Parliament talking about small holdings, they wished they could put them on this uncultivated land to try and make a living out of it. He should like

  1205
  to set some hon. Gentlemen down on this land, and trying to get a living out of it without having money to put into it like these poor starving people. He knew a man in his own neighbourhood who was in very good employment in a town, but unfortunately a relative left him 20 acres of land with a small cottage. He gave up his employment, went with his family to reside on the land, and from that day to this had gone from bad to worse, and was now in a state of almost starvation. There was no employment in these small holdings in the country. The land would not afford employment unless money were put into it If it were desired that the land should afford employment, hon. Members should induce people with money to cultivate it, and then it might be made to afford double the amount of employment that it did now. Farmers at the present time were so poor that they could not employ labour, and they certainly could not pay a man 12s. a week when his labour only produced 10s. at the most a week. If hon. Members opposite were in earnest in this matter, they would endeavour to take steps for the improvement of the agriculture of the country. It was the much-maligned landowner who provided work for the agricultural labourer, and also employed all the old men and kept them out of the workhouse, and so enabled them to end their days in peace and happiness. But he was sorry to say, owing to the depressed state of agriculture, the landowners were becoming fewer and fewer. He wished to warn the House against the idea that these small holdings would give employment to people.
  MR. BOUSFIELDhad listened with great attention and disappointment to the statement made upon this matter by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. The optimistic conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman seemed to come was, that all was for the best in the best possible world, and under the best possible Government. He told them they had reason to congratulate themselves; that, there was no great necessity for alarm, and then went on to complain that in a matter of this sort Englishmen ought not to have to go to the Central Government, but should rely on themselves in the different localities. In that he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman, but he had to make a complaint
  1206
  against the Government in this matter, and that was that whereas the Government officially told them the different authorities ought to look after the matter themselves, yet when these Local Authorities and Boards of Guardians applied for powers to do things they could not do without the consent of the Central Government, they were discouraged in these applications and sent back. Unfortunately, all Local Authorities were bound hand and foot, and could not move without the consent of the Central Authority. Representations had been made by the Hackney Board of Guardians to the Local Government Board as to the amount of distress that existed in their district, which was driving people to suicide and despair, and asking whether they could give a certain amount of work to deserving people who were in destitute circumstances.
  The hon. Member was proceeding to quote from the correspondence when—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, he could not go into detail in the matter.
  MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD, continuing, said, the reply of the Local Government Board was that they could not give any employment unless it took the form of relief. It was perfectly well-known that there were large numbers of workpeople in this country who, sooner than accept relief in the ordinary form in which it was given by Boards of Guardians, would accept suicide, or death, or starvation in any form. It was, therefore, perfectly well-known that when the Local Government Board, in reply to the Board of Guardians asking for consent to set these people to various kinds of work, stated that the Guardians could not give remuneration except in the form of relief, that it was condemning these people to starvation, because the prevailing sentiment was that under present circumstances people would not accept Poor Law relief under the degrading terms on which it was offered. Subsequently, the Board of Guardians drew the attention of the Local Government Board to the fact that there was power vested in them under existing Statutes by which they might acquire land in the country, and use it for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed, and asking for leave to exercise that power. The Local Government Board, in reply to the application, said that the Statutes

  1207
  in question were generally regarded as being obsolete, and that, therefore, leave to exercise the power they gave must be refused. He maintained that in giving these replies to the applications of the Hackney Board of Guardians the Local Government Board had done their best to discourage them in their efforts to provide work for the unemployed. He contended that Local Authorities, in reference to this matter of employing people, should be allowed to make their own experiments, and that the Central Authority should give them that freedom which was required for these experiments. That was the true policy for the Government in the matter, and the Government by hampering instead of encouraging the Board of Guardians deserved ill of the people of the country. There were two practical things which he thought the Government might do quickly in the matter before the winter was passed. They might pass a short Act of Parliament, probably with the consent of both sides of the House, throwing on the Local Authorities the duty of keeping a register of the unemployed, and they might issue a Circular to Boards of Guardians pointing out the powers which already existed for relieving the unemployed and stating that no difficulties would be thrown in their way if they saw an opportunity for making an advantageous experiment in the matter.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, that there was no doubt that the want of employment was largely responsible for those evils of which his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham complained. He proposed to confine himself to the question as far as it touched the Government as an employer of labour, especially as that point had been touched on by Secretary to the Local Government Board. In the first place, it would be admitted that the Government by working overtime in a great many of their establishments were tending to aggravate the evils complained of. That was a point on which he, as the representative of a constituency in which there was one of Her Majesty's dockyards, could speak with some authority. The Secretary to the Local Government Board had stated that even though the Government might increase its production so as to absorb some of the unemployed labour, it would not give work to the skilled men who
  1208
  suffered through the want of employment. But that was not quite so. Take the case of the Keyham Factory in his constituency. If the Government were to adopt shorter hours in that factory the men that would get employment would be skilled men, such as fitters. The Trades Union to which these men belonged had a larger number of unemployed on their books than for any year before. Therefore, if shorter hours were adopted in the Government factories and workshops it would tend to diminish the great evil of the unemployed. When the House remembered the grand declarations made by the Government in March last, when they said they would accept a position equal to the best employers in the country, it was not too much to ask of them to give an earnest of that intention by establishing 48 hours per week in their workshops.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That subject does not come within the Motion.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, he admitted that it was rather difficult to apply the subject to suicides, and he would resume his seat.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, that as the Representative of Tilbury Docks, he should like to refer to certain things which was occurring there every day. He need hardly say that he alluded to the question of foreign immigration—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will not be in Order in referring to the subject.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, of course he would bow to that ruling, and would not continue his remarks, but he would support the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion in the Division Lobbies.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I think the House ought as far as it can to separate the causes which have led to the deplorable circumstances referred to in the Motion into two categories— namely, causes due to transitory circumstances, and causes of a chronic and permanent character. With regard to causes of an ephemeral nature, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion made suggestions with which I am not prepared very largely to agree with him; nor, on the other hand, am I inclined on the present occasion, at any rate, to maintain an attitude of hostility to the action of the Local Government Board, so far

  1209
  as that action has been concerned with temporary causes of distress. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board spoke of a Circular which his Department issued in which certain works of a temporary character had been recommended, and he spoke of various works which had been undertaken by Local Authorities with a view to meet the causes of the distress. The hon. Gentleman was on tolerably safe ground while he confined himself to that limit; but when he proceeded to deal with causes of a permanent character, he entered on a line of argument in which I am not at all disposed to agree with him. The Secretary to the Local Government Board spoke of the desirableness of encouraging the occupation of land, and he referred to certain efforts in that direction contained in the Parish Councils Bill. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was tempting me to refer to that Bill, but I certainly will not follow him into any criticism of its provisions, as we have already so many opportunities for discussing the measure. But if we are to take an intelligent view of the sad circumstances to which attention has been drawn it is most important that we should recollect that the Local Government Board Circulars recommending the digging of a drain or two, or the pulling down of a slum, and the construction of a street or a road will do nothing whatever towards alleviating permanent causes of distress which have culminated in so many cases of starvation and suicide. Whatever difference of opinion may prevail as to the remedies to be applied, it is indisputable that for many years past there has been a vast accession to the population of the towns owing to the depopulation of the country districts, and nothing has contributed more directly towards the multiplication of the sad cases of death resulting from want than the elbowing out of the urban population by the rural recruits attracted to the towns through the diminution of employment in their own districts. Is anyone prepared to deny that the vast progress made during the last 20 years in the diminution of arable cultivation has distinctly led to migration from the rural districts to the towns? If I may quote statistics, I can show that at least 60,000 persons have been thrown out of employment during the last few years in
  1210
  the rural districts and driven into the towns by this cause. If hon. Members think that the works suggested by the President of the Local Government Board in his Circular can do anything towards alleviating the permanent causes of distress, they are hugging a very vain delusion. The crowding of our towns and the consequent destitution are owing to the fact that the cultivation of large areas of the country has been absolutely abandoned, while large tracts of arable land have been laid down to grass, thereby necesitating a large diminution of the rural population employed on the land. It is calculated that at least three out of every five labourers employed on the land are dismissed for every acre of arable land which finds its way into grass. I am sure the House will not be led away from the path of duty before it by the suggestion that ephemeral sanitary works and doubtful expedients of that kind are sufficient to meet the permanent causes of distress. The only true remedy for this state of affairs is that some profitable return should be secured to those engaged in the cultivation of the soil. Until Parliament is prepared to do something to bring the waste land into cultivation, until it is prepared to boldly face that issue, and so long as it is terrified by the bugbear of Protection—
  MR. CAINE: I rise to Order. I desire to ask whether the right hon. Member is in Order?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right hon. Member cannot raise the question of Protection in connection with this subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish to avoid anything of that kind; and I would prefer to put my point in this way: Until Parliament is prepared to apply the remedy which will enable the land to be, cultivated and the great flocking of the rural population into the towns to be checked it is simply trifling with the subject The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion referred to a subject which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, very properly pointed out cannot be referred to in detail— namely, the extent to which our workmen are driven to starvation and suicide by the competition of aliens in the labour market. Without going into the question of the immigration of aliens, I will merely say that in many cases destitution

  1211
  culminating in death has been brought about by the competition of such persons. In one case—
  MR. CAINE: I rise to Order.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is not in Order in referring to this subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: If the hon. Gentleman opposite had waited till I had finished my sentence he would have found that I would have said nothing to offend his sensitive ears. I was merely about to refer, when I was again interrupted by the hon. Member, to one specific case of suicide that has appeared in the newspapers, in which death has been clearly traced to the fact that the employment which the suicide was previously engaged in had been taken away from him by such competition as I have referred to. I trust the House will not content itself with a few passing words suggesting ephemeral remedies; but that it will look boldly in the face all the difficulties with which this problem is surrounded, and that it will not hesitate to grapple with them.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, it was difficult to understand what was relevant to the Motion; but in the few remarks he had to make he would strive to keep in Order. He was of opinion that the Circular sent out by the Local Government Board was an invitation to a number of poor parishes to impoverish themselves still more by increasing their rates. In Woolwich the rates were 7s. in the £1, and the public works in that district would have been done long ago if they could have afforded it. At the very time that the Circular was received from the Local Government Department the War Department were discharging or suspending men in batches every week, and so were increasing the difficulty with which the Local Authority had to deal in meeting the distress caused by lack of employment. The Labour Department of the Board of Trade had been more active of late, but had never been sufficiently nourished with public money. It ought to be a separate Department, presided over by a Labour Minister, and it could then supply information as to the districts where employment was needed. Why did not the Government come forward with a Supplementary Estimate for Government work which was necessary without waiting for the magical
  1212
  date of April 1? The Government were no doubt bound by the old red-tape notion that they had got to spend so much money before the 1st of April, and that they could not move in any new matter until that date had arrived. This distress was a national, and not a local, complaint, and must be dealt with over a larger area than the Local Authorities referred to by the President of the Local Government Board, if it was to be dealt with adequately. The Prime Minister's sanguine hope of adopting 48 hours a week in Government workshops was no use unless carried into effect. Sympathy without relief was no proper answer on the part of the Government, and although Governments of both Parties had hitherto paid insufficient attention to the masses of the people, he had expected from a Liberal Government a different answer to that which had been given.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, the Secretary to the Local Government Board had stated that the Government had no statistics as to the number of suicides this year. But he did not think the House should wait until they got these statistics, but they should do all that it was possible for them to do at once in order to prevent starvation and suicides arising from distress. It was only that day that he was visited by a workman who had told him that for 30 years there never were such bad times, and he had had letters from the Society of Engineers which stated that they had never had such calls on their funds as at the present time. He thought it was the duty of the Government to do something, especially as by their action the previous day on the betterment question the unemployed in London would not get the legitimate employment which they would otherwise have had. He felt strongly for the unemployed, but still he did not think the Government should provide work for them, though, considering the action they had taken on the betterment question, they ought to do something. The Government would find that when the General Election came it would be brought home to them that many of the suicides and the deaths from starvation were due to their want of action. If the hon. Member for West Ham went to a Division he would support him, for though he was opposed to the Government

  1213
  giving work to the unemployed, we wanted a proper Navy, and the Government could find money to do what other people could not do.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid, he thought this question was well worth consideration. They were too much accustomed to hearing it treated purely as a local matter, whereas really it was an Imperial matter. He did not anticipate that the Government would immediately assist the unemployed of London, but he thought it was their bounden duty to take measures whereby they could reach the foundation of all these cases of misery, and suicide, and starvation. They all knew what urged and hastened the rural labourers to London, swelling the ranks of the unemployed. It was because they could not get on the land—because land was entirely unproductive at the present time, and when the Government brought in in September, when three parts of the House of Commons had left, a Fisheries Bill, which imposed a 1d. rate on the whole population of Scotland, to maintain a single industry, surely they might—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not now in Order.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid, he only desired to say that if the Government found a way for encouraging the industry of fishing in Scotland, they ought to allow no antiquated notions to prevent them from finding a Way also for encouraging the cultivation of land. The present time was as bad as bad could be, and if it continued they would have a still greater number of suicides and deaths from starvation. He could give the House numbers of illustrations of hardships and starvation in country districts through a want of employment. It became the Government to take an Imperial view of the question. The Government had brought in measures which the House or the country did not care two-pence about, instead of directing themselves to these social matters, which were of far more importance to the country than many imagined. He maintained that there ought not to be those suicides and deaths from starvation. He had a very large farm, and when he got only 25s. a ton for his potatoes, surely there ought not to be starvation, food was so cheap. Years ago it was understood that statistics would be given on those matters by a
  1214
  Labour Bureau in connection with the Board of Trade, but no such information had been given, and the House was, therefore, at a disadvantage in dealing with the question. Unless they went to the bottom of the matter and searched out its real causes they would never be able to effectively cope with the difficulty.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he did not propose to detain the House more than a few moments, because he did not think the subject could be properly discussed now. If anyone wanted to know why such a large number of suicides took place in the East End of London he had only to go there to see the conditions under which the people lived and carried on their occupations. Anything more sad and shocking than the scenes to be witnessed there it was impossible to conceive. If they looked into the doss-houses, the private workshops, and the shelters of General Booth, and asked themselves whether life was worth living in such circumstances he believed the universal answer would be that it was not. Some years ago a Commission sat on the question of sweating, and important as was the evidence collected, and effective as was the work of the Commission for a time, he ventured to say that it had done nothing permanently to decrease sweating among the working classes. This was a national question which no parish could adequately deal with; it was one with which the Government alone could cope. Though this Debate must necessarily be ineffectual, he hoped that something would come out of it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, he joined in the opinion that this question exceeded in importance other questions now before Parliament, and that no time ought to be grudged for its discussion, but he regretted that the terms of the Resolution were so restricted that they could not deal with the matter in all its bearings. The Debate had shown that neither the Government nor the House were in possession of the real facts of the problem. They had had conflicting opinions as to the extent of the evil. The Secretary to the Local Government Board in his sympathetic speech had gone back many years in order to show that there were not now a larger number of persons in receipt of relief than there were 10 years ago, but he did not tell the House

  1215
  that, compared with 1892, there were on October 31 27,000 more. There was another fact which deserved attention— namely, that in 32 organised trades there were no less than 25,000 men in receipt of unemployed pay, and if that was the case with regard to organised trades it must be much worse in connection with unskilled labour. These facts showed that the evil was very acute. He therefore wished to know what the Government intended to do with a view to supplying accurate information as to the extent of the evil and the nature of the problem? Would the Government take such action as would induce every Local Authority to have a labour registry so as to assist not only in supplying information, but in providing employment? Another point was, what were the Government going to do with regard to their workmen? for he contended that one of the causes of the starvation in the country was that the present Government had not taken prompt action to put their workmen on an eight hours day. They had had 16 months to consider the question, but nothing had been done. Did the Government intend to enforce the Railway Servants' Hours Bill, or to issue regulations for the guidance of Boards of Guardians in hiring land to employ labour? In view of the number of agricultural labourers out of employment it was time for action, for he believed that in this direction much good might be done. The Government should not fail to realise that the real solution of this difficulty was in some way or other to stop the immigration into the towns.
  SIR S. NORTHCOTE SIR S. NORTHCOTE (Exeter), who was indistinctly heard, said, to a great extent he agreed with the Secretary to the Local Government Board in the preference he expressed for the exertions of the Local Authorities as against State action. Yet he was bound to say that they would find a widespread feeling in the country that the action of the State in some form or other must be invoked. He thought it would be wise if the Government could see their way to develop the action of the Labour Bureau. What he particularly wished to press on the Government was to consider whether some steps could not be taken to revive in the different localities in the Kingdom local committees to develop the emigration system. He thought voluntary
  1216
  emigration, if established, would do something at least to relieve distress. He knew that emigration was not a, popular remedy, but it was a possible one, and he trusted the Government would consider whether they could do anything to promote it.
  MR. STUARTsaid, he thought it must be felt that, in regard to this important question, which deeply affected the whole community, they had been engaged in a Debate of a thoroughly unsatisfactory character, for under the restrictions imposed it had been confined to very narrow ground. Although he thought there had been some exaggeration, there was a great want of employment, particularly in certain parts of the Metropolis, and, while some of the Parish Vestries—the one in his own district, for example—had been giving extra employment, he felt that the richer districts of the Metropolis might be called upon to assist the poorer districts. How could they adequately discuss such a subject as this under such circumstances? He might almost say that the discussion had been worthless, and that the votes given in a Division would partake of the same character.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think everyone will agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that this Debate must necessarily be of an unsatisfactory character, not indeed that the subject is a small one, but because it is much too large a one. Your ruling, Sir, has, no doubt, very properly restricted the area of the Debate; but I notice that, among the subjects of necessity introduced into a discussion of this kind, various speakers have referred, among others, to the following subjects:—Dockyards, betterment, emigration, small holdings, Government employment, Poor Law administration, Protection, registration of labour, and the eight hours day. [An hon. MEMBER: Equalisation of rates.] I have only made a selection; it is not a complete enumeration; but, at all events, it is a tolerably large one, and the very fact that hon. Gentlemen have attempted to bring in, with more or less-success, these various subjects proves how far-reaching this discussion must necessarily be if it has adequate scope, and how impossible it is to base a sufficient building on so narrow and limited

  1217
  a foundation as that supplied by the words of the hon. Member for West Ham. At the same time, I feel, and I think the House will also feel, that when the outside public is deeply stirred and moved by any great problem—when the public prints are occupied as the representatives of the public opinion with any great social problem—it is advisable that this House should show so much sympathy as is shown by some debate, however inadequate, within these walls. I am sorry that the Government have spoken to us through the mouth of one who is not in the Cabinet. I cast no reflection on the hon. Member, who has shown great ability. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board. It was full of facts and figures, and it was a most important and interesting speech. I do regret that some Member of the Cabinet has not thought it desirable to supplement that speech with more authority than can possibly be wielded by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. From the Papers published by the hon. Member's Department it appears to me that he has unduly minimised the extent of the evil which exists. There is only one other point I shall dwell upon in connection with the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that we were not in a worse position in the Metropolis at the present time than we were in at corresponding periods of previous years. But this is what the Local Government Board says in the note appended to the September Return—
  "The forthcoming figures show that the number of persons relieved in the Metropolis in September was larger than in any year since 1873, and was also larger than in the years between 1857 and 1865. In only eight out of the preceding 36 years have the number of persons relieved in September exceeded the number of persons relieved this year, and the proportion of pauperism to population is larger in 1893 than in any year since 1876, one year only being excepted."
  That portion of the note is certainly ominous, and I am not aware that anything has occurred since its publication to minimise the serious information that it contains. Therefore, I cannot hut think that the hon. Member's statement was coloured with a somewhat unduly rosy and optimistic tinge which the stern facts of the most melancholy case do
  1218
  much to dissipate. Several speakers in this Debate have sought the source of that pauper class from whom are drawn the cases of starvation and suicide specifically referred to in the Amendment. They have traced the origin of that class to the immigration from the country districts into the towns. I shall venture to lay before the House one general consideration in connection with this immigration from the country, which seems to be almost invariably lost sight of by those who discuss this question, but which lies at the very root of the problem, and which, if it be forgotten or omitted from consideration, renders all our deductions and arguments worthless. Of course, I admit that in times of agricultural depression the immigration from the country to the towns must increase with all its consequent evils. As we have been passing through a period of agricultural depression, not, I fear, to be remedied by any solution hinted at here, it follows that there has been an aggravation of the evil of immigration. But do not let any Member suppose that if agriculture were as prosperous now as it was 20 years ago, or as the dreams of the greatest dreamers of dreams would make it, you could by any possibility stop this immigration from the country. It depends upon causes and natural laws which no laws which we can pass can permanently modify. The plain fact is that in a rural district there is and can be only one investment for capital and only one employment for labour. When prosperity in agriculture increases immigration into towns diminishes, no doubt; but, however prosperous agriculture may be, a normal point must be reached when no more capital can be applied to the land and no more labour can be applied, and when you have reached that point it does of necessity happen that if marriages occur with the frequency with which they occur at the present time, and if families are as large as they are at the present time, there must be an immigration from the country to the town, from the place where there is only one kind of employment of labour, strictly limited by the natural capacity of the, soil, to another place where there is no limit whatever to the employment of labour except the limit set by the amount of capital seeking investment and the amount of labour capable of

  1219
  taking advantage of that capital. If that were an abstruse doctrine of political economy I should be afraid to mention it in this House, where political economy has become a byeword and reproach. But it really is a plain statement of a natural law which I most earnestly advise every man to take to heart. Let us suppose, for example, that small holdings had the effect of diminishing the immigration from the country to towns, of planting a large number of labourers on the land who at present do not find employment on the land, and of thereby mitigating the evil, how long would that state of things last? Is it not plain that even if small holdings succeeded—and I am afraid that, except in peculiar circumstances, it is impossible at present prices that they should succeed—the only result would be that you would have a large number of families in the country districts, of which the surplus children must come to the towns in search of occupation? The only result of increasing the number of families on the land, whether in consequence of the adoption of protection, or by the extension of small holdings, or by any other scheme, would in the long run be not to diminish, but to aggravate the evil of this very immigration to which many gentlemen here attribute the evils from which we are now suffering. I hope the House will not think that what I have said is unworthy of consideration. These are subjects upon which accuracy of thought is really of as much importance as excellence of sentiment. It is a very little matter whether we adopt a sympathetic tone or not unless we are prepared to devote our minds impartially to the consideration of the real permanent issue and not accept the first imaginary remedy for a very serious and grave evil. There is one other point which ought not to be left out of consideration. We have in this country, especially in London, a gigantic aggregation of population. The population of London is now no less than 4,300,000 within the metropolitan area. One consequence of this extraordinary aggregation of population is that you see compressed within narrow limits all the sores and diseases and evils of the social system which, if the population were widely spread, would almost escape
  1220
  notice, not because they would be less in quantity, but because they would be spread over a larger area. If all the Utopias of the hon. Member for West Ham could be turned into realities there must always be in any civilisation a certain amount of waste produce—a certain number of failures. In a congested population you see the people all congregated in one place, and the failures strike the imagination as they would not strike it in other circumstances. Although I do not think that we can easily exaggerate the disease, I do think that sometimes we are ready to fancy that it is greater at the present time than it was in past time, when the population was less congregated in small areas, or than it is now in the country where the population is thinly spread over large areas. Many gentlemen have in this Debate expressed or hinted their opinion that a great deal might be done by the State organisation of labour. I do not mean State organisation in any Socialistic sense—I am not referring to the State's getting hold of the instruments of production: mills, farms, &c.—I mean the organisation of labour so that a man with labour to dispose of may know where it is best to dispose of it, and I think that possibly something can be done in that way. After all the chief source of prosperity in the wage-earning classes, the greatest source of prosperity, compared with which all other sources sink into insignificance, is the demand for their labour which is produced by a very large amount of capital seeking investment in new enterprises. I say this simply in the interests of the workmen, and it is a fact which the working classes sometimes do not sufficiently keep in mind. You cannot do a greater injury to the working classes than by doing something which induces people, who in other circumstances would invest at home, to invest abroad, or by doing something which prevents people from investing at all and induces them to spend their surplus money upon luxuries and amusements. I hope the House will not suppose that in making that observation I am taking the part of one class against another. That is far from my desire. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government told us with truth that one of the reasons why this year was a year of exceptional distress was that it has

  1221
  been signalised by a trade warfare between the employer and the employed in an industry on which other industries depend. Everybody feels that these great battles, though they may be necessary, are, like other battles, horribly destructive. Everyone must desire, and none more than the Government, who have done what they can to prevent them, that these barbarous methods of settling labour quarrels should, if they cannot be done away with altogether, be diminished as far as possible. I do not dispute that both the Trade Unions and those against whom the Trade Unions are arrayed may have been doing in all cases the best for their own interests, and I do not deny that in the long run the action of Trade Unions may have been on the balance of enormous advantage to the class for whom the Trade Unions were established; but it appears to me that we sometimes forget how intimately bound up is the prosperity of the working classes with the profitable investment of capital in this country. Here and there, now and then, undoubtedly, the workmen may be right, are right, I believe, in combining to see that they get the full measure of their rights; but in spite of these passing difficulties between the two classes, it is absolutely impossible that you should permanently do anything for the one that does serious lasting injury to the other. What I feel is that the great object you have to look to, and probably the method to which the House can best devote its energies, is to do all in its power to foster and secure enterprise in our great commercial centres, and so to organise the relations between those who seek employment and those who seek for workmen, that any man who desires work shall not be without it if there is any man willing to find work for him. These are very old-fashioned and, perhaps, elementary considerations, but they are not always remembered by those who discuss these questions, and it is simply because I feel that I should be, perhaps, yielding to our natural desire, in touching on these social problems, to lose ourselves in soft platitudes that I have ventured respectfully to lay before the House the hard facts which none of us can dare to forget if we are adequately to deal with the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: The interesting, almost fascinating, speech to which the House has just listened makes me more regret the conditions under which the Debate has been conducted. Although the right hon. Gentleman has opened a very wide field of discussion, and although there might be a good deal of general agreement with some of his propositions, yet some of us will be disposed to dissent from many of the conclusions he has laid down. It would, however, be clearly out of Order to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman complained that no Member of the Cabinet had taken part in the Debate. The reason was that the Secretary to the Local Government Board, in the course of his fair and statesmanlike speech, had stated the views of the Government on this question. We are not at liberty to go into the whole of the question, nor do I think that a Motion for the Adjournment of the House is the best mode of considering a question of this vast importance. As to the complaint against the administration of the Poor Law by the Local Government Board, made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bousfield), I have only to point out that the administration does not depend in any way on the Party politics of the President for the time being. The Local Government Board pursues a well-defined policy which has been laid down by a long line of predecessors of mine. When the proper time comes I shall be prepared to give a complete answer to the charges the hon. Member for Hackney has brought against my Department. Meanwhile, I would only say that we are dealing most sympathetically with applications made to us by the various Unions in London, and I have reason to believe that one or two public-spirited Boards of Guardians are now trying experiments which might throw some light on the question we are discussing. There is only one other remark I will venture to submit, and it is this: In a very short time the Royal Commission on Labour over which the Duke of Devonshire presided with so much ability will have concluded its labours. Whatever the conclusions of that Commission may be, they will present to the

  1223
  House and to the country a more complete and more accurate exposition of all the conditions of labour at the present time in this country than has ever been presented before. Though I am a Member of that Commission, I feel enabled to speak rather eulogistically of its labours, because for more than 18 months I have not been able to take part in its deliberations, and therefore speak as an outsider. But I feel satisfied the Report and their investigation will throw considerable light on this difficult problem, and the time will come when we must have a much fuller discussion in this House than can be afforded on a casual Motion for Adjournment. I would, therefore, now appeal to the House to bring this Debate to a close.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, that the discussion, with all its defects, would not have been in vain if only it had produced the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The House had been precluded by its own act from discussing this question that day, and the only means which remained to the House of informing the Government of its opinion on this point was the Division Lobby. Every Member who went into the Lobby with him declared that the Government should do something immediately to provide work for the unemployed. ["No!"] At all events, he did not want anybody to go into the Lobby with him who did not hold that view. Those who went into the Lobby against him held the opposite view. ["No!"] The Liberal Party, when in Opposition, adjourned this House to discuss the case of a girl wrongly imprisoned. Was not this question of the unemployed as pressing and as important as the imprisonment of a girl? This House, after a Motion for the Adjournment, had passed a Bill dealing with swine fever, involving or authorising an expenditure of a considerable amount of money—£60,000 a year—and he held in his hand a Bill for a loan of £10,000,000 to India. He submitted that if these matters could be dealt with by moving the Adjournment, so also could the question of the unemployed. If the Government had indicated that they would appoint a small Select Committee, or have taken any other step in order to find relief for these people, he would have felt satisfied. He objected
  1224
  to being interrupted by the Member for Sunderland.
  MR. STOREY: I rise to Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should have used my name in any such way. I simply made an observation to an hon. Friend of mine which had no reference to the Member for West Ham at all.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, the Government had taken up the position of saying they could not do anything in the matter, but that the Local Authorities must deal with it. But the Local Authorities were unable to do it, and it became the duty of the Government in some way or other to remove this evil.
  MR. STOREY MR. STOREY rose to speak, but—
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE MR. KEIR-HARDIE, rising to Order, said: I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether this discussion can be entered on after I have replied?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Undoubtedly; otherwise an hon. Member having made a Motion could at any time close the discussion.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the Resolution before the House was that the House do now adjourn. While he sympathised with the woes of all mankind, he intended to vote that the House do not adjourn, in order that they might get on with necessary business.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 175.—(Division List, No. 380.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—(No. 274.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 11th December.]
  [NINETEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 14 (Delegated powers of Parish Councils).
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. Goldsmid) in the Chair.]
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he had to move—In page 11, line 1, after the first "a," insert "rural." He

  1225
  understood the Government were willing to accept this Amendment, which was introduced in order to indicate the particular class of District Council to which the power was to be given. They had elsewhere a definition of an Urban Sanitary Authority, and he thought they should make it definite that a Rural Council was referred to here.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 1, after the first" a," to insert the word "rural."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
  Question proposed, " That the word ' rural' be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,said, he agreed to the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) proposing—
  In page 11, line 1, after "to," insert "the members of"; and page 11, line 1, after " Council," insert " being persons liable to contribute to the poor rate "
  are out of Order. The third Amendment is in Order.
  MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY (Preston) moved—
  In page 11, line 3, to leave out "Public Health Acts," and insert " Public Health Act, 1875."
  He said, so far as he was able to discover, these Committees were to deal with no other Act but that of 1875, and, as they did not want a lawyer in every village, they should try and make the matter as simple as possible. But if they made reference to a large number of Public Health Acts he was afraid it would be anything but simple. He found that there were some 16 such Acts; but they did not give any power except that contained in the one Act, and, that being so, why should they not at once refer merely to that Act? The District Council would want a lawyer as well as a Parish Council. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him upon the point.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 3, to leave out the words " Public Health Acts," and insert " Public Acts, 1875."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' Public Health Acts ' stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,said, in the delegation of powers the District Council would be obliged to delegate powers contained in the other Acts. They must look to the other Acts for the powers which were to be delegated. The Amendment would not assist, but would tend to mislead that Council and the Parish Council also.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would suggest, that, at all events, these Parish Councils should know what Acts they were to deal with. They should be printed in an appendix or a schedule. He was afraid it would not do to refer them to the 16 Acts to which he had alluded. They ought to be referred to the powers that were delegated to them, if only to save trouble. There was only one Act delegating powers, and, surely, all these Acts did not deal with the powers so delegated. They should, at all events, as he had said, have the matter put before the Councils in a specific way. If the Government could not do that now, they might give a provision that they would consider the question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, if, as the Solicitor General said, the Councils were to be referred not merely to the Act of 1875, but to the long list of Acts mentioned by his hon. Friend, the situation would be something awful. He did not know whether they were aware that by this Bill they incorporated, repealed, or adopted 32 other Acts. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question. The question was were they to add 16 more Acts to these 32? They were told that they were to have not merely the Act of 1875, but several other Acts. He thought they might follow the precedent set in the case of the Seal Fisheries Bill during the present year. In that case every clause of every Act of Parliament dealt with was printed in an appendix to the Bill itself. If that course were followed, the advantage to the village, the Councillors, and all concerned would be very great. If the reference were an advantage in the other case, how much greater must it be here, where the Bill was one intended for administration by simple people who were not versed in Acts of Parliament.
  COMMANDER BETHELLHolderness)said, it would be the duty of those connected with the District Council to deal with the powers to be delegated, and it was very likely the clerk of the District Council would be a lawyer, or a person able to guide that body. He wanted to ask what advantage there was in allowing the District Council to delegate some of the sanitary duties to the Parochial Committee when there was a Parish Council?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is the inclusion of the Public Health Acts.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, with reference to the suggestion that the Acts should be scheduled, he would point out that it would be impossible to schedule them.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, this was a most interesting and useful clause. It followed the line he had advocated in the Committee, and went in the direction of strengthening the Parish Council. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to meet the desire to have the references scheduled, but he was inclined to think it would be very difficult to carry out the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSON MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk) moved, in line 3, omit from the word "Acts" to the end of the section. He did not think there was any necessity for the words. They ought to leave the matter in the discretion of the District Council.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 3, to leave out from the word "Acts " to the end of the Section.—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they did not want divided jurisdictions in small parishes. If they were to make any alteration they would have to repeal the section of a former Act which enabled the appointment of a Parochial Committee, and the delegation of powers to it. This would be his answer also to the question addressed to him the hon. Member for Holderness.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, his question was as to why certain powers should be delegated to a Committee where a Council existed; but he would not press the matter.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, for his part, he did object to people who were not ratepayers being brought in to deal with district matters. He did not think it was right that people who did not contribute to the poor rate should have a voice in dealing with district matters. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman would say they would be members of the Parish Council, who would be appointed to the parochial committees; but they would have power to deal with the district in general, and he repeated it was not right that people who were not ratepayers and who were not elected by the district should be brought in in that way. It was well-known that those who were elected for the district would have the power to control the officials of the district.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, yes; if the right hon. Gentleman would only read the instructions given by his predecessor, he would find that they had a perfect right to give orders to the officials—not their own parish officials, but district officials. That was his reason for seeking to introduce a limitation with regard to ratepayers. It was not necessary to propose that a man should be a ratepayer. If he was to be elected, the people, it was to be presumed, would look into his qualification. If they gave authority over the larger area, the person elected should be a man who contributed to the rate. And he was afraid if this clause passed in its present form, it would give a very large power indeed.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSON: I withdraw the Amendment, Sir.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, as a consequential Amendment, he begged to move—
  In page 11, line 3, after the word " where," to insert the word " such."
  Question proposed, "That the word ' such' be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsignified assent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he would move as a further Amendment—
  In page 11, line 3, to leave out the word " appoint," and insert the word " appoints."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WHARTONsaid, there was one question he wished to put: In a case where there was no Parish Council, but only a parish Court, what would be the effect of the clause? How would the parochial Court be delegated?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The status quo would remain undisturbed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15 (Complaint by Parish Council of default of District Council).
  SIR A. ROLLIT SIR A. ROLLIT rose to move an Amendment which stood in his name.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he thought he had an Amendment which came before that of the hon. Baronet below him. He moved, in line 1, to leave out "consider" in order to insert "resolve." He thought "consider" was not definite enough, and he hoped " resolve " would be substituted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 1, to leave out the word "consider," and insert the word "resolve."—(Sir R. Paget.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 7, after the first "a" to insert the word " rural."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'rural' be there inserted."
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEasked if the powers contained in this clause should not be given to the ratepayers in the case of Urban District Councils?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not object to the Amendment. He did not think it necessary to give an appeal to the County Councils in the case of Urban Authorities. Those authorities, whether large or small, would object.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, there were many small urban districts that were quite as great sinners in sanitary matters, and did quite as much harm to neighbouring parishes as rural districts. The County Councils already had powers in
  1230
  respect to many urban districts. They had to consider the reports of medical officers and make representations to the Local Government Board with regard to certain districts. Under the circumstances, he thought it hard that the Bill should not give power to the inhabitants, who were injured by the neglect of a small Urban Authority to make complaint to the County Council. The question would have to be considered in connection with a later section in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he desired to move—
  In page 11, line 10, to leave out "in accordance with the Public Health Acts," and insert " in cases where danger arises to the health of the inhabitants from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of water, and a proper supply can be got at a reasonable cost."
  He moved the Amendment for the reason that under the Public Health Act of 1875, Section 299, any inhabitant had power to appeal to the Local Government Board in case of default by a Local Authority. The words of his Amendment were the words of that clause, showing exactly under what circumstances the inhabitant had a right to appeal. It struck him, therefore, that it would be well that when a Parish Council complained of a Local Authority, it should also complain to the County Council for exactly the same reasons and in the same words, so that they should not have an ordinary subject having a right to appeal to the Local Government Board on one ground, and a Parish Council, in an exactly similar matter, having a right to appeal to the County Council on other grounds. The words he proposed to strike out had a vagueness that he had complained of on a former clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 10, leave out "in accordance with the Public Health Acts," and insert " in cases where danger arises to the health of the inhabitants from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of water, and a proper supply can be got at a reasonable cost."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member for Preston was quite right. These words were the exact words of the

  1231
  Public Health Act. The draftsman had rather preferred the words in the clause as a matter of scientific drafting, but he (Mr. Fowler) agreed with the hon. Member that it would be better to put on the face of the clause the grounds on which the appeal should be made. Rather against the judgment of his advisers, he had resolved to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. HANBUEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 11, line 12, after the word " Acts," to insert the words " which it is their duty to enforce."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he wished to suggest an Amendment which should be inserted after the words just added to the clause. Later on they gave Rural Sanitary Authorities the powers, in some cases, of Urban Sanitary Authorities. The Local Government Board would also be able to give them certain powers as Urban Sanitary Authorities, not only under the Public Health Acts, but under other Acts as provided in Clause 24. He wished to insert in Clause 15 a provision which would enable Parish Councils to complain not only when the District Council made default as a Rural Sanitary Authority, but also when they made default as Urban Sanitary Authorities.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the answer would be the same as that which would be given to the hon. Member for Somersetshire—namely, they must wait to see what was done with Clause 24 before the point raised could be decided.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he would move his Amendment, which would give an appeal in cases where the District Council had failed to maintain or repair highways within their jurisdiction. He did not think that the question here raised depended on the result of the consideration of Clause 24. It might be inconvenient to deal with these matters at this part of the Bill, but that arose from the manner in which the Bill was drafted. His object was to give the same power of complaint against Rural District Councils quâ Highway Authorities as there would be against them quâ Sanitary Authorities. Whatever else was done, he imagined that at any rate where there were Highway
  1232
  Districts already, there would be Highway Boards — highway powers placed in the same hands as rural sanitary powers. Where there were no Highway Boards, the Government probably would not force them to be established, but in some districts where they were already there would be no question about their remaining in existence. They were necessary in some parts of the country, the parishes being too small, and the counties too large. Therefore, whatever happened on Clause 24, it would still be necessary to vest highway powers in District Councils. Where that was done he would put it to the President of the Local Government Board whether there should not be similar powers of complaint detailed as against the Highway Authority as were already given in regard to Sanitary Authorities. Under Section 10 of the Highways and Locomotives Act of 1878, there was power of making complaint to the County Authority that the Highway Authority had made default in maintaining and repairing all or any of the highways within their jurisdiction. That was a similar kind of complaint to that which would be given in the clause, but the clause did not end in the same way. The present position was that the County Authority had the duty of inquiring and of making orders on the Highway Board to perform its duty. But there was this curious limitation on the part of the County Authority which might in many cases make the power rather nugatory: that it had either to satisfy the District Authority, and thus make it comply with its order by agreement, or else the District Authority would have the right to require the County Authority to submit to a jury the question of its own liability to repair the highway. That seemed to him a most inconvenient and unnecessary power to give, and one quite inconsistent with the very clause they were discussing. Why should a question like this be submitted to a jury when they had a much more speedy process in the Bill? Therefore, he wished to substitute the simpler power of enforcing this obligation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 12, after the word "do," insert the words " or that such District Council have failed to maintain or repair all or any of the highways within their jurisdiction."— (Mr. H. Mobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, this did primâ facie appear a simple method of procedure, but that simplicity disappeared when they carefully examined the Section 10 to which the hon. Member had referred. As a matter of fact, the Highway Authority did not usually sin by merely neglecting its duty. It declared that it was not its duty to deal with a particular highway, and that became a legal question; and Section 10, therefore, carefully provided for that question to be put in the way of being decided by litigation. If they adopted this Amendment they would have no such authority. The thing in Section 10 had been very carefully gone into by the Legislature.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he did not suggest that that section should be repealed.
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that simplicity was not gained by giving concurrent authority. It would be better to leave the particular question of want of repair of highways to be determined by the special legislation which in 1878 was passed as a complete scheme.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEasked the Government whether they would consent to adopt his Amendment and to add at the end of the clause a proviso that if any question were raised as to the liability of a District Council to maintain or repair a highway, such question should, if the District Council so desired, be determined by a jury under the provisions of Section 10 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878.
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the provision already made out on the subject was perfectly simple. Anyone might make a complaint to the County Council, and, therefore, the County Council could at once order the work to be done. If it were not done the County Council could then appoint a person, who would have all the powers of a Rural Sanitary Authority, to do it.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONremarked that it would be better for the Parish Council to move in its representative capacity than in its individual capacity. What
  1234
  was everybody's duty was nobody's duty.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he had not gathered on what ground the Government opposed the Amendment. The Solicitor General would admit that the Highway Acts were an extremely complicated set of enactments, and the difficulties which arose under them were really very great. All his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Hobhouse) suggested was that the same power of appeal should be given with reference to failure to perform their duties by a District Council with regard to the highways as was proposed to be given under the Bill with reference to other matters. His hon. Friend was one of the highest authorities on these matters of local government, in consequence not only of his legal learning, but of the facts that he had taken a considerable part in the administration of local affairs, and had for many years been engaged in the duty of framing Bills for the consideration of Parliament. As his hon. Friend recommended this Amendment, and as the difficulties in its way did not appear to be great, he (Mr. Long) hoped the Government would see their way to reconsider their determination.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We have given the matter our best consideration, and have come to the conclusion that we cannot accept the Amendment. I should, however, be sorry if it were negatived, as I should like to have an opportunity to reconsider the point when we know what the Committee intend to do with Clause 24.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FULLER*MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury) moved an Amendment giving the Parish Council power, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to do certain work which should be done by the District Council. His object was, he said, that the parish should have the choice of doing the work if it were capable of performing it; that, for instance, it should, if it preferred, do its own sanitary work. There were a large number of parishes, having a high rateable value, in a position to do their own work, if only the opportunity were afforded them, and who would gladly undertake it in cases in which the District Council failed to

  1235
  give satisfaction. He was acquainted with the case of one large parish which was anxious to carry out a system of sewerage, which the Sanitary Authority at present refused to undertake; and he did think that in a case like that the parish should be empowered to give effect to its own wishes, with, of course, the consent of the Local Government Board. The parish in question had a higher rateable value than some of the Urban Authorities in the County of Wiltshire, and it would be much better to let it do its own sanitary work, instead of leaving it to complain to the County Council of the default of the District Council. No harm could be done by conferring this power, while at least it would afford the Parish Councils an instructive lesson in self-government, and it would at the same time relieve the County Councils of some of the large amount of work now being cast upon them.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11. line 13, after the word " may," to insert the words " with the consent of the Local Government Board, exercise the powers of the District Council in which such parish is situated, or."—(Mr. Fuller.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: One of the cardinal points of our Bill is, that the Parish Council is not in any sense to be made a Rural Sanitary Authority. To that we must adhere, and in consequence it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment. I can understand that there are exceptional parishes, with a large population, ready and desirous to undertake these duties, but they have the remedy in their own hands. They can apply to be made Urban Sanitary Authorities. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  MR. W. LONGagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he congratulated the hon. Member for the Westbury Division on his Amendment. No doubt his policy was to decentralise the system of local government; but had the Amendment been accepted, it would have had a directly contrary effect, by giving the Local Government Board more control over the parishes than it now possessed. That had not hitherto been the policy advocated by those with whom the hon. Member was accustomed to act. He
  1236
  believed that Clause 14 gave the parishes all the powers they required to enable them to manage their own affairs, and in addition to that, it was the case, as the right hon. Gentleman had reminded them, that if they wished more power it was open to them to apply to be created into Urban Sanitary Authorities.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he, too, was opposed to the Amendment, because he was an advocate of decentralisation. He agreed with the last speaker that Clause 14 was a most valuable part of the Bill, and gave all the powers that were necessary, and he was, therefore, glad to know that the President of the Local Government Board refused to accept the Amendment.
  MR. FULLERsaid, his object seemed to be misunderstood. He did not want the Local Government Board to undertake the work; he only wanted the consent of that authority to the parish doing its own work, and that consent could be given after inquiry by an Inspector. Under the circumstances, however, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, this was one of a series of Amendments which were intended, in his opinion, to abrogate the Parish Councils functions now proposed to be delegated to the District Councils. He had on a previous Amendment pointed out the inconvenience of constituting two distinct authorities to deal with one and the same class of subjects, and he was opposed to this Amendment because it would have the same effect. He was not sure that the Bill steered quite so clear as it might of this danger, and that it did not create a certain amount of confusion. The hon. Member apparently wanted to get rid of the District Council altogether.
  MR. FULLER: No.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary, it was the practical effect of the Amendment, because it deprived the District Council of a considerable portion of the duties delegated to it by the Bill.
  MR. FULLER: Only in case it fails to do its duty.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman assumed that the District Council would neglect its duty. He was not going himself to deny that very

  1237
  likely it might do so, and when he came to the portion of the Bill which dealt with District Councils he should feel it his duty to call attention to one or two cases in which it was likely they would fail. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be mainly to increase the powers of the County and Parish Councils, and to lessen those entrusted to the District Councils, and a question might, if that were allowed, arise as to whether there was any necessity for the intervention of the District Council between the County and Parish Councils. As the hon. Member intended to withdraw his Amendment, he wished to say that when other Amendments of a like character were brought forward, he hoped he would not be charged with inconsistency when he reiterated his contention that the District Council had simply been brought into the Bill by the Government in order to carry out the pledges which they had given. They knew very well that in many respects the work to be delegated to the District Council could be better done by other bodies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SNAPEmoved an Amendment giving three ratepayers as well as the Parish Council power to make complaint of default on the part of the Parish Council. He said he hoped the Government would agree to the proposal. The principle embodied in it had already been accepted by Parliament, and inserted in various Acts, including the Allotments Act of 1887 and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. He held that, especially on matters connected with the health of the community, ratepayers should have a right to complain in case of inaction on the part of the proper authority. Those hon. Members who were connected with County Councils must be well aware that, in consequence of the unwillingness of Local Authorities to move, there were many unhealthy dwellings and districts to be found. He thought it would be a great advantage if ratepayers should have power to make representations to the County Councils in case the Local Authority failed to take action.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 18, at end, insert,—"(2) A complaint under this section may be made by any three ratepayers residing in or near to the district of the District Council complained of as well as by a Parish Council."—(Mr. Shape.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: When the legislation to which my hon. Friend has alluded took place there were in existence no Parish Councils, and therefore these special provisions were deemed desirable, and it was thought desirable to have some local power to make complaint. But now we are constituting Parish Councils, and I must enter my respectful protest against this interference with those bodies, and against the suggestion that a Council elected by the parish may be dominated by some motive as to saving the rates, and will not therefore do its duty. I think it would be unwise to introduce into the parish conflicting authorities. The adoption of the Amendment could only lead to confusion, seeing that the hon. Member does not even propose to confine the power of complaining to parishioners. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press it.
  MR. SNAPEsaid, he would not press the Amendment, but he still thought the proposal a desirable one, and he denied that it was intended to show any distrust of the Parish Council.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman failed to understand the object of the Amendment.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I fully understand it.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had commented unfavourably on the fact that the Amendment proposed to give power of complaint to three ratepayers "residing in or near the district." But the object was to meet the case of a nuisance which had its source in one parish, but really affected another parish, such, for instance, as a polluted stream. It was very desirable that anyone living in a district likely to be affected should have a right to complain.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had to submit an Amendment the effect of which would be that, when a District Council had determined on a plan for sewerage or waiter supply for a parish, the Parish Council should have the right to receive communication of such plan and express its opinion thereon previous to any contract being entered into for the execution of the work. He understood

  1239
  the Government were willing to accept his proposal, but the President of the Local Government Board had framed it rather differently. He gladly adopted the altered form.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 18, at end, insert,— "When a District Council has determined on a plan for sewerage or water supply for any contributory place within the district they shall give notice thereof to the Parish Council of the parish for which the works are to be provided before any contract is entered into by them for the execution of the works."
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not understand what was meant by that proposal. He had had that day to deal with the case of a sewerage scheme framed on behalf of a Rural Sanitary Authority, and lodged under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act which gave powers to take land for such works. Now, was it intended that in such cases in future notice should be served on the Parish Council equally with the owners of the property affected? If so, and should the Parish Council be of opinion that the scheme would create a nuisance—as it would, undoubtedly, in the case he had had to deal with that day—would the Parish Council be at liberty to incur expense by opposing it, or did the Amendment only intend that it should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion? He thought it right, and some plan should be adopted to enable a Parish Council to state its views as to the effect of any scheme, but he hoped it was not intended that such power of expressing an opinion should involve a right to enter upon litigation.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As has been pointed out, it would be unfair that schemes of the sewerage or water supply should be carried out in a parish without the Parish Council having an opportunity of expressing its views thereon. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not intended to confer any power of taking up a litigious attitude or of spending money; all the Amendment will do will be to enable the Council to ascertain how the parish is being treated and to say whether or not it approves the scheme.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that met his point, and he did not wish to oppose the Amendment. All it did, as he gathered, was to give the Parish Council a locus standi at any inquiry the Local
  1240
  Government Board might hold, and enable it to lay its views before the Inspector without, however, incurring any expense.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, there was another point to which he wished to draw attention. The clause enabled the County Council to supersede the District Council, but did not fix any limit to the supercession. He, therefore, moved an Amendment defining what should be done in that matter.
  Amendment proposed,
  After last Amendment, add, "Such duties and powers shall continue to he exercised by the County Council until the necessary works connected with the subject-matter of complaint have been completed."
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the last Amendment."
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he quite appreciated the object of the hon. Baronet; but he thought the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the powers of the County Council were already clearly defined. It would simply do what the District Council should have done.
  SIR R. PAGET: How long will the supercession last?
  SIR J. RIGBY: Until it has done the work which the District Council should have done. There can be no doubt about that.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he understood from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that this clause would not detract from the powers of the County Council to take the initiative when sanitary improvements were required. During the last two or three years an immense amount of sanitary improvement, which had been much needed, had been effected in the County of Durham. The County Council called on the various Rural Sanitary Authoties to take action where it was required; and the owners of the mining villages responded to the appeal of the Rural Sanitary Authorities with the most satisfactory results. He was glad to be assured that such good work on the part of the County Council would not be interfered with under the Act.
  SIR J. RIGBY: Not in any way.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that the Solicitor General, with his eye of legal intelligence, might see in the words of the clause what was not visible to the

  1241
  eye of the ordinary layman. However, he accepted the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman that his point was provided for already, and begged to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MALLOCKsaid, he desired to call the Solicitor General's attention to the fact that there was some confusion in the Bill as to the use of the singular and plural number. In past clauses the Parish Council was referred to in the singular number; and in this clause and subsequent clauses it was referred to in the plural.
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was sorry it was not allowed to remain in the singular. "Parish Council" was a noun of multitude, and might be either singular or plural.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, the clause sinned in two ways. He hated the District Council, for he thought it was bad; but having decided to have it, it was a pity that a clause like this should be inserted in the Bill to destroy the authority of the District Council. He did not believe that under any circumstances the District Council would have sufficient interest in its work to induce it to carry it through in an effective fashion, and if the Bill gave to the Parish Council an appeal from them to the County Council, the motive to make the District Council do its duty would be still weaker. That was a sin of commission. There was also a sin of omission in the clause. The hon. Member for Ripon had said that the Durham County Council had been able to do a great deal of sanitary work. He did not know under what clause of the Act they had been able to do it. At any rate the County Council of his county were unable to appoint a medical officer for the reason that if such an officer were appointed he would have no powers. In his judgment the County Council ought to be responsible for the general health of the county, and therefore able to appoint a medical officer to look after the county.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On Clause 16 (Officers of the Parish Council.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved in page 11, line 19, to leave out "one of their number," and insert "a parochial elector." He thought it was desirable, especially in the cases of small parish communities, that the number of salaried officers should be reduced to the minimum. If the Parish Council could secure the services of one of their own numbers to act as clerk without remuneration, it would be the best plan in the interests of the pockets of the ratepayers. But he could not understand why some persons other than a member of the Parish Council should not be entitled to act as clerk, likewise without remuneration. Of course it would be right enough that a person on whom enormous duties were thrown should be remunerated; but in a small parish the duties of the clerk would be nominal, and he could not see why any person who volunteered to discharge the duties without salary should not be allowed to do so. There was one part of the clause which made him suspicious, and that was the sub-section—"A Parish Council shall not appoint a vestry clerk." He suspected that the reason why the clause provided that the clerk must be a member of the Council, was that the Government were afraid that in many cases the Parish Councils in those small rural communities might appoint such a terrible person as the parish vestry clerk. He hoped he was wrong in his suspicion. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 19, to leave out the words "one of their number," and insert the words "a parochial elector."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I fully sympathise with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman. Our object and the right hon. Gentleman's object is to prevent expense as far as possible. We thought it desirable that if there is a sufficiently public-spirited member of the Parish Council disposed to Act as clerk to the Council without remuneration, he should be allowed to do so. But I think it would be an awkward thing to introduce a stranger, for the Council would have no power over him unless they paid him.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn as the

  1243
  explanation of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was in the right and proper spirit.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had met his point very fairly, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. HANBURY (who was received with Ministerial cries of "Agreed ")said, he did not see when a Member got up on the Opposition side of the House he should be greeted with these constant interruptions. Such action did not tend to shorten the proceedings. He desired to point out that though the President of the Local Government Board did not desire that any member of the Parish Council should be appointed clerk with a salary, it was quite possible to do so under Sub-section 3, which provided that "some other fit person" might be appointed clerk, with a salary. The Parish Council might consider one of their number a fit person for the post. He thought the words "not being a member of the Parish Council" should be inserted after "or some other fit person."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 27, after the words " fit person " to insert the words " not being a member of the Parish Council."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that this was another instance of the over nervousness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The clause provided that the Parish Council might appoint one of their number as clerk without remuneration. That involved a negative on the appointment of a Parish Councillor as clerk with a salary.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was afraid to enter into a controversy on a point of law with such an eminent legal authority as the Solicitor General—
  SIR J. RIGBY: This is not an absolute point at law. It is a point anyone can understand.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Then I am bound to confess that I am nobody—
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 33, he will find that a Parish Councillor is disqualified from continuing in office if he accepts a position as a paid officer.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I am glad to hear that, but I would advise the right
  1244
  hon. Gentleman to give a copy of the Bill to the Solicitor General.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he could not compliment the draftsmen on the clause. In the first place, the Parish Council were told that they might appoint one of their own number as clerk; in the next sentence they were told that an assistant overseer might be appointed; then if there was no assistant overseer, a collector of poor rates might be appointed; and after that they might appoint anyone they liked. Surely it would have been sufficient to provide that the Parish Council should have power to appoint a clerk? That was what it came to after they had got through all this rigmarole. The clause should simply run—
  " The Parish Council may appoint a clerk, and pay him a salary."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had argued that Clause 33 turned a Councillor out of the Parish Council if he held a paid office, Then, if that were so, the words "without remuneration" in the present clause were surplusage, and not required. He, however, agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Preston that the words "any fit person" included a member of the Parish Council, and it therefore seemed to him necessary to have the Amendment adopted.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, the matter could not be said to be quite clear without the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston. The Committee should remember that they were not legislating for lawyers, but for small bodies of Parish Councillors who should be told exactly and clearly what they were to do.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is not necessary to be a lawyer to understand Clause 33. It absolutely provides that no Parish Councillor can be a paid officer.
  MR. W. LONGsaid that, so far as Clause 33 was concerned, there was no doubt about it. But in that case what was the object of stating in the present clause that a Parish Council might appoint one of its number as clerk without remuneration? There was really some doubt about the phraseology of the clause, but he did not think the words proposed would clear it up.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Our motive is to indicate that the Parish Council

  1245
  may appoint one of their number, but not to pay him. That has not an enacting force, but a guiding force. But we positively object to the insertion of these words because they would really interfere with Clause 33.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that Subsection 2 of Clause 64 provided that an existing Vestry Clerk of a rural parish should become the clerk of the Parish Council. That seemed to be quite mandatory, and directed the Parish Council where there was an existing Vestry Clerk to appoint him clerk to the Parish Council.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That matter will be explained at the proper time, when we come to Clause 64.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSON MR. J. GRANT LAWSON moved to omit all the words in line 28, after "remuneration," in order to insert "as they may think fit." If a Parish Council appointed one of their own members as clerk there was no question of remuneration; but if the assistant overseer were appointed, the Parish Council were to consider his services when taking his salary into account. If they appointed a collector of poor rates the District Council was to come upon the scene, and he thought it was rather absurd not to trust the Parish Council to fix the salary of their own clerk. He could understand there was something to be said for the District Council or Boards of Guardians fixing; the remuneration, as it might affect the poor rate; but why the District Council should be brought in for the purpose of fixing the salary of any other fit person to he Clerk of the Council it passed the wit of man to understand. The right hon. Gentleman himself just now, in reading over the clause, read it in the way he (Mr. Grant Lawson) desired It to stand, and he therefore proposed his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 28, to leave out all the words after "remuneration," and insert the words "as they may think fit."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, those restrictive provisions were put in to prevent any unnecessary expenditure on the part of the Parish Council. If hon. Gentlemen
  1246
  opposite approved of the Amendment he was willing to accept it; but if so he hoped it would be accepted at once, as they did not wish to be involved in a protracted discussion.
  MR. LAWRENCEobjected to the Amendment, as he knew something about the fixing of salaries. On the County Technical Committee with which he was connected there had been a good deal of feeling as to parochial committees raising the salaries of their clerks, though, owing to the wise action of the County Council, they were equalising them. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HANBURYsupported the view of his hon. Friend who had just spoken. It was quite clear, he thought, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, that this taking away the last words of the sub-section might have the effect of raising the salary of the clerk, and that was what he did not want.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, it might, or it might be the other way.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of " No! "]
  MR. W. LONGonly rose to say he entirely approved of the Amendment, and if it was left to the Parish Council to find the money he did not think they were likely to be extravagant.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that if they referred to Sub-section 3 in Clause 64 they found it said—
  "Any existing Assistant Overseer in a parish for which a Parish Council is elected shall, unless appointed by a Board of Guardians, become an officer of the Parish Council."
  If the Amendment laid it down that the Parish Council could fix the salary at what they chose, there would be conflicting salaries.
  MR. FISHERsupported the Amendment of his hon. Friend, as he thought the Body that ought to estimate the value of the services of their servant was the Parochial Body, who would know what amount of work their servant would be called upon to do. The parishes would be of varying sizes, having varying work to be done, and the District Council would not know how to estimate the value of the services rendered. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He did not

  1247
  think they were agreed; if they were he would not venture for a moment to waste the time of the House, but until he saw some signs of agreement he thought they ought to consider the question. The Parish Council who employed the clerk was the best able to judge whether he performed his duties in such a way as to deserve an increase of salary; they ought to be able to reduce or increase the salary according to whether the work was performed efficiently or inefficiently. He hoped the Amendment would meet with the support of the Committee.
  SIR E. PAGET SIR E. PAGET, who was received with cries of "Oh!" said he thought hon. Members on that side of the House had a right to be heard. At the first glance the Amendment commended itself to him, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, because he thought it might lead to the clerk getting a higher salary. On the whole he thought the Amendment to be an improvement of the clause, and he should therefore support if.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to move the omission of Subsection (4) "A Parish Council shall not appoint a Vestry clerk." He presumed what was meant, though it was not stated, was that they should not appoint a Vestry clerk as clerk of the Council.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, no.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, in that case why should they not say the Parish Council should not appoint the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Where did they find in the Bill power to appoint the clerk of the Vestry?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the question was provided for in an earlier part of the Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they shall not appoint a clerk to the Vestry?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Not a Vestry clerk.
  MR. FINCHsaid, he rose to propose a new sub-section to Subsection 4 of the clause, and he trusted the Government might see their way to accept it. Parochial Committees were appointed under the Public Health Act, and to these committees powers were
  1248
  given that often required the advice of a legal man to enable them to be properly carried out. Amongst the powers thus given were the making of new roads, doing away with nuisances, seeing after drainage, and such matters, and unless-properly advised they might make mistakes. He wished to provide that when the Council acted as a Parochial Committee it should have the benefit of legal advice. They could not say that the clerks that would be appointed would be men of law or have any legal knowledge, and it might be essential they should have the advice of a clerk who could give-them proper legal advice. Unless they gave power for the appointment of such a clerk, they might be certain the Sanitary Authority would never make the Parish Council a Parochial Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 29, after the words "Vestry-clerk," to insert as a new sub-section,—" When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it may have the services of such clerk for its purposes as a Parochial Committee, as the District Council may direct."—(Mr. Finch.)
  Question proposed, "That the new sub-se3tion be there inserted."
  MR. DARLINGsaid, if the Amendment were inserted, it seemed to him the Committee would have got into a considerable difficulty, because the-words immediately preceding this proposal were "A Parish Council shall not appoint a Vestry clerk," and then it was proposed, whereas they could not appoint such a clerk, "when a Parish Council acts-as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it may have the-services of such clerk," who had not been appointed "for its purposes as a Parochial Committee." If the Amendment were accepted as it stood it would appear-that they could not appoint a clerk, and when they could not appoint a clerk some-other body should have the value of his services "as such." It cost him a good deal to oppose this Amendment, because they could not but have it brought to their notice that they were told they were to sit there on Boxing Day. [Cries of "Question!"] He hoped that it was a question; but if they were, the Bill would compose the finest libretto in London; therefore he hoped they would sit.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the criticism of the hon. Gentleman was

  1249
  smart but flippant. The purpose for which this Amendment was proposed was a sound and business-like purpose, and with a little alteration the Amendment might, he thought, be accepted. He understood the hon. Gentleman meant that the Parish Council should have the services of the District Council clerk. He would suggest that instead of saying "may" the hon. Gentleman should put in "shall," and he would tell him why. His experience, and his hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) would agree with him in this, was that when they appointed a clerk and said his services "may" be required, if they were required he immediately applied for an increase of salary, whereas if they said his services "shall" be required that was taken into account on the appointment. If the hon. Member would accept his verbal Amendments the Amendment would then read in this way—
  "When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it shall have the services of the clerk of the District Council for its purposes."
  If that were done he believed the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, despite the flippant criticism of the hon. Member for somewhere.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, in that case the Parish Council was to have two clerks, its own clerk for certain purposes, and the clerk of the District Council for other work. Such a course, he believed, would lead not only to a certain amount of friction but to additional expense. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman he would suggest that the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that as he understood the meaning of the Amendment it was that the duty of discharging the delegated duties in the first instance belonged to the Rural District Council, and in the performance of those duties they would have the services of their own clerk. The old acting powers of the District Council enabled them to delegate certain work to the Parochial Committee, and he could not see why the clerk should not help the Parochial Committee as well as his own Council. He was inclined to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment with a verbal alteration—namely, to leave out "as the District Council shall direct." That, he thought, would put it beyond all reasonable doubt.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It would be better if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment and allowed it to be moved in the altered form.
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to point out that while he thought the Amendment should be introduced he was doubtful whether is should be amended in so strict a sense as recommended by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He was acquainted with what took place when they appointed a Parochial Committee. It was appointed to do duties that the District Council could not do, such as works of drainage in a distant district; the clerk of the District Council might not be able to supervise those works, and it might be desirable sometimes to have a solicitor to help the Parochial Committee in the duties; therefore he thought the Amendment was justified. He would suggest, however, they should insert the words—
  "shall have the services of such a person as the clerk on the Parochial Committee as the District Council shall direct."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, this seemed a good arrangement on the face of it, but suppose there were a dozen or 15 parishes that wished to have a Parochial Committee, was this poor unfortunate officer of the District Council to do the work of all of them? Some districts might have 30 or 40 parishes, and he wished to point out that delegation of the duties of the District Council might become so frequent that it would be almost impossible for the District Council officer to attend to every one of them.
  MR. W. LONGtrusted the hon. Gentleman would accept the combined suggestions of his hon. Friend behind him and the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) If it were made permissive the difficulty would not arise as if it were made obligatory.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Amendment was very good as it stood on the Paper, but how would it be carried out? Did they suppose that any solicitor who was appointed clerk of the District Council would see about all these committees? He would do nothing of the sort; he would send a clerk here and there, and he would make a bargain to do this, or to have a supplemental fee, and the expense would be thrown on the

  1251
  Parish Council. They would have to look after drainage, sewerage, and other matters, and they would not require a solicitor to do that. If they wanted a lawyer then he admitted they ought to have the use of the District Council clerk, and, therefore, what was required was that the Parish Council should have the right to say whether they wanted his services or not.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERthought they could meet the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Sir J. Dorington), and he would suggest that the hon. Member should add, after the words "Parochial Committee" in the last line, the words "unless the District Council otherwise direct."
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, what he wanted was that the Parish Council should say whether they required it; he did not want the District Council clerk to press his services on the Parish Council; he did not want this lawyer—he knew what lawyers were—to be sending his clerk here and there, and recouping himself by fees and salaries out of the Parish Council.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the Amendment, as now suggested, would cover what the right hon. Gentleman required. If the Amendment were proposed in the form suggested, and upon which they seemed to be all agreed, he would accept it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERconsidered that if Parish Council required the legal advice of the clerk of a District Council, who, he presumed, would be a local legal practitioner, they ought not to have to pay him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 29, after the words "Vestry Clerk," to insert as a new sub-section,—"When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it shall have the services of the clerk of the District Council, unless the District Council otherwise direct."— (Mr. Finch)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping) moved the following Amendment:—
  In line 30, to leave out from the word "Council," to end of line 31, and insert the words "shall appoint a banker."
  He explained that the object was. to provide that the funds of a Parish Council might be placed in the hand of a banker who would be a responsible person.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 30, to leave out from the word "Council," to the end of line 31, and insert the words "shall appoint a banker."—(Colonel Lockwood)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause"
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the appointment of a banker by a Parish Council compulsory. There was nothing to prevent them appointing a banker. There was many a Parish Council where there was no banker in the neighbourhood, and it was, therefore, be very undesirable to make it compulsory. He had great respect for bankers, and in large matters it would be desirable to have a banker, but in small matters he did not think it would be desirable. He did not see why they should fetter the discretion of the Parish Council.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, that in a neighbourhood where there was not a banker the funds might be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank. His object was to make this compulsory.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEShoped this Amendment would not be adopted. A banker was defined to be a person to whom people lent their money without security, and without interest. That was a luxury, and they did not propose that the Parish Councils should indulge in luxuries. He confessed that this clause as to the appointment of the treasurer, coupled with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to move that the treasurer should give security, was very much better than the Amendment now under discussion. He would far rather have a treasurer with security than a banker without it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
  In page 11, line 31, at end, insert "and the treasurer shall give such security as may be required by regulations of the County Council."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JEFFREYSproposed the following Amendment:—
  In page 11, line 33, after the first "parish," to insert "except such as relate to the affairs of the Church, or of any ecclesiastical charity, or to any duty of the minister of the parish."
  He hoped the right Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because the words

  1253
  were incorporated in a subsequent Amendment of his (Mr. Fowler's) own.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERdid not wish to anticipate any discussion as to the custody of parish documents, which would come on in his next Amendment; but this provision in the Bill had no bearing upon ecclesiastical affairs in any shape or form. It was intended to meet cases where documents were required to be deposited with the parish clerk, either under this Act or by Statute or by Standing Orders of Parliament. So that there should be no possible misconception on that point, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment he would himself propose to amend the sub-section by adding the words—
  "All documents required by Statute or by Standing Order of Parliament to be deposited."
  SIR R. WEBSTERconsidered this the best suggestion, and it would clearly show that the sub-section only applied to official documents that had to be deposited by law.
  MR. LEIGHTONinquired what the documents were which had to be deposited?
  Mr. H. H. FOWLERhad not the Standing Orders at his fingers' ends, but he might say that if a railway or canal went through a parish, or there was any public work for which statutory authority was required, plans and documents had to be deposited with the parish clerk, and this was really to carry out that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed, after the word "required," to add the words "by Statute or by Standing Orders of Parliament."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HENEAGE MR. HENEAGE moved, in line 34, after "deposited with," to insert "the treasurer or." He said that, as a rule, the treasurer was a substantial man, and there was the further advantage that he had to give security.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 34, after the words "deposited with," to insert the words "the treasurer or."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the parish clerk, or where there was no parish clerk, the Chairman was the
  1254
  proper person to entrust with the custody of these documents. The treasurer was appointed for a totally different purpose, and these documents were required to be deposited with other documents with the parish clerk. On the ground of necessibility this was the best course.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought that under the Railway Act of 1845 it was compulsory for such documents to be lodged with the parish clerk.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of necessibility as being a desideratum in this connection. He had mentioned the Chairman, but the Chairman might be resident three miles away. The treasurer was a substantial individual in his own person, and there were persons behind him who had to give security, and he, for his part, proposed that the person in whose charge the documents were placed should be one who had afforded security himself, or had obtained it elsewhere.
  MR. HENEAGEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONproposed after the words "Parish Council," to insert the words—
  "and the enactments in respect to the inspection of and taking copies of and extracts from any such document, shall apply as if the clerk or chairman, as the case may be, were mentioned therein."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed the following Amendment:—
  In page 11, line 35, at end, add—"(7) All parish books and documents, other than those relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, but inclusive of any documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct; and the Incumbent and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, shall have reasonable access to the documents in the custody of the other of them, and any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council."
  He should, he said, like to explain to the Committee exactly the principles on which they had gone. First of all, the law excluded altogether the registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials. Their custody were provided for by Act of Parliament — 52nd George the 3rd, chapter 136—which they did not interfere with in any way. Then he proposed to

  1255
  exclude altogether from this section any documents or parish books relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities. The Committee would recollect that they did not interfere with the Vestry in its ecclesiastical aspect. The Vestry would still remain the body, and its officers, whether Incumbent or Churchwardens, as the case might be, would still have the custody of documents which were exclusively ecclesiastical or related to ecclesiastical charities. Then they came to two other distinct classes of books, papers, and documents; first, those which were partly ecclesiastical and secular, and those which were altogether secular. He took it that with reference to the last description of papers there could be no difference of opinion that the Parish Council stepping into the shoes of the Vestry in its non-ecclesiastical aspect must of course step into its shoes so far as concerned documents which do not relate to that object. This clause concerned minute books and books of account, and these, no doubt, in the past would be partly secular and partly ecclesiastical. The proposition of the Government made to the Committee was this: That those public books, writings, and documents should either remain in their existing custody, which would be possibly the Vestry, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council might direct. That was the first provision. They next provided that access to these books and papers should always be afforded to those who represented the ecclesiastical side of the parish on the one hand, and those who represented the secular side on the other. There was a provision that the Incumbents and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, should have reasonable access to these documents, and then they proposed to provide, in case of difference, as to custody or access—and of course it was possible some differences of opinion would arise mainly on the ground that this or that document was not exclusively ecclesiastical or secular—that that difference should be determined by the County Council. He should be glad to listen to any objection which might be made to the Committee as to the proposal. Ecclesiastical documents were to be left in ecclesiastical hands, secular documents in secular hands, documents partly ecclesiastical
  1256
  and partly secular to be deposited under the control of the Parish Council, either where they were now, or in some new depository, but in case of a difference of opinion arising, the County Council should interfere and decide. There was thus an immediate Court of Appeal to settle this question. He thought it very desirable that there should be some superintending authority as to the custody of these documents, and it had occurred to the Government that it would be an advisable thing to invest the County Council with power from time to time to inquire how these documents were preserved. He very much wished it had been in their power to extend the provisions of that Order to the registers of births, deaths, and marriages. These were the documents which were the most important, and most in danger, and had been in the past. But he had from the first maintained that this Bill did not and would not interfere with any ecclesiastical question, one way or the other, and therefore on that ground the clause excluded all ecclesiastical documents. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 35, at end of the Clause, to add the words,—"(7) All parish books and documents other than those relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, but inclusive of any documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct; and the Incumbent and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, shall have reasonable access to the documents in the custody of the other of them, and any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council." — (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR E. WEBSTERdid not rise at the present moment to express any opinion on debateable matters that might be raised on subsequent Amendments. He would rather postpone that, because he did not desire to initiate a discussion until he knew exactly the points to be raised. There were two points of great importance to which he desired to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had stated perfectly truly that the custody of the registers of births, marriages, and deaths, were controlled by certain Statutes. Had he sufficiently

  1257
  considered whether it was quite clear that these words might not affect these Statutes? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it was clear the words did not affect the Statutes in any way.] The next point was what was to happen with reference to a document which unquestionably did contain entries with regard to ecclesiastical matters. Take the case that there was in a book extracts of church ages; entries of Churchwardens, matters relating to the affairs of the Church, and also in the same book certain entries of a secular character. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose, where they were clearly and distinctly entries in reference to ecclesiastical matters, that the County Council should have the discretion? because it seemed to him that was a matter as to which there might be serious objection. He could understand if some direction were given as to the character or proportion of the entry, or something of that kind. But to give an absolute discretion, in the first instance, to the Parish Council, and in the second to the County Council, simply because there happened to be in the same book which contained ecclesiastical matters some entries of a secular character, was a position that ought not to be taken unless they were satisfied that it was the right course to adopt. It appeared to him that the right course to take, in the first instance, would be to leave such documents in their present custody, otherwise the subject might give rise to considerable discussion, and to much heartburning. There was a strong feeling that the custody of such documents ought not to be changed unless there was a necessity for it. He hoped that the whole matter would be fully discussed before the Committee came to a decision with regard to it.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENthought there was no one who would not feel that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had very fully redeemed his pledge with regard to this question, and they all felt that he had made a very fair attempt not to interfere with ecclesiastical affairs or property in this matter. At the same time, he wished to move his Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which was to leave out all the words from "documents," in line 1, down to the word "remain," in line 4, for the purpose of inserting the
  1258
  word "shall." He wished that the Parish Councils, for the sake of parish work and parish business, should have every facility for due access to these documents; but, at the same time, that these documents should remain in their existing custody. The right hon. Gentleman had divided the documents under three heads—namely, those that were purely ecclesiastical, which were to remain in their present custody, those which were partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, and those which were purely secular—as to which the right hon. Gentleman had said he thought there could be no difference of opinion at all. Although the Vestry was going to continue with practically the same constitution as it had at present, they proposed to take away from that body its own records and history, and to hand them over to a new body. That was a proposal to which they (the Opposition) could not assent. If the Vestry was to continue to exist, why should these documents be given up to a new body? Then, with regard to the more difficult class of records—those which were partly ecclesiastical and partly secular — the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the County Council should be the authority to decide which were ecclesiastical and which not.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, Yes.
  Mr. H. H. FOWLERsaid, No; they would have no more right to control purely ecclesiastical documents than they would have to the Communion plate.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, they would have to select and choose and decide which was an ecclesiastical and which a secular document. That was rather a curious extension of the powers of the County Council. He admitted it might work fairly well in England; but did the right hon. Gentleman think that a Welsh County Council would be a fair body to decide what was ecclesiastical and what was not? The majority of a Welsh County Council would hold that nothing belonged to the Church. He could not conceive a more preposterous body to decide such a matter than a Welsh County Council. When they considered that the majority of those who would have to decide these questions in Wales were opposed to the Church, and held that nothing, not even church buildings,

  1259
  belong to the Church, they would understand what he meant. He would put a case such as that indicated by the late Attorney General (Sir R. Webster). The Vicar of Harley, in Berkshire, had written to him to the effect that in his parish book, dating from 1699, there were minutes of secular Vestries and of ecclesiastical Vestries alike all in the same volume. Was the County Council to tear out certain pages and hand them over to the Parish Council, and to tear out others and hand them over to the Vestry? The existence of such documents was a very strong argument for leaving them in their present custody. Although this might not appear to be a matter of first importance, it was one of great importance; next to the question of parish rooms, it was the question that excited most interest among the clergy. He had read a very large number of letters from clergymen in every part of the Kingdom asking that the custody of the Vestry documents and other parish records which had remained with them up to the present should remain with them for the future. The only satisfactory reason that could be given for handing these records over to the Parish Council would be that they should be better and more safely kept. He did not think that a Parish Council elected every year would be a better custodian than the existing authorities. His hon. Friends and himself were perfectly willing that the Parish Council should have perfectly free access to the records; but they should remain in their present custody. He begged to move his Amendment as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  In line 1, to leave out from the word "documents," to the word "remain," in line 4, in in order to insert the word "shall."
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, as he understood it, the hon. Member for Thirsk dealt with the exclusion of the registrars of marriages, baptisms, and burials.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must put the Amendment that has been moved.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: This is a different question.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: This Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Boscawen) has been moved, and I have to put it.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: No, Sir. With great respect, it has not been moved, and you have not put it.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I think it has not been moved.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! The Amendment has been moved. It can be withdrawn when proposed to the Committee; but it has been moved, and I am bound to put it.
  MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: Excuse me, Sir Julian—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! It is the duty of the Chairman when an Amendment has been moved to propose it from the Chair. This Amendment has been moved, and I now propose it.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'other than' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he made no apology for again mentioning to the Committee the points that he already dealt with, for when he last spoke he had not had his attention called to the 6th section of the 58th of George IV. which dealt with the question of the keeping of the registry of marriages, baptisms, and burials, and gave directions as to the keeping of them and parish books. He would direct attention to this provision, and he thought they might deal with those registries now.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is perfectly in Order as I have put it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is at liberty to move any words afterwards.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government were not going to argue this point. The Solicitor General was of opinion that the matter was clearly understood; but if an authority of the high eminence and great legal standing of the late Attorney General had any doubt they would further consider it. They did not mean that those registers should be interfered with, and he would suggest an Amendment in this form—after "other than," leave out "those," and insert "registers."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee must be decided in the first instance.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, of course; and in that case he would like to clear

  1261
  the ground between them. What was the point of difference? He understood they had before them a proposal with reference to the retention of these documents and their custody. By the Bill they were constituting a new secular authority, and his view was that all secular documents should be placed in the custody of that authority. They believed that that was the best way in which these documents could be kept, and thought they would be better kept in that way than they were now. He was quite willing to recognise the sentiment—or, perhaps, he should say, any higher feeling—entertained by Churchmen with regard to documents partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, and he would listen to any suggestion with regard to their custody. But so far as this Amendment was concerned it would place them in a false position as regarded secular documents. The Parish Council was entitled, in his opinion, to the custody of the secular documents of the parish—past, present and future. With regard to what had been said as to the probable action of the Welsh County Council, he did not think anyone would agree that a County Council would act in the manner which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boscawen) had thought fit to suggest. There was no necessity for contesting this question. If the hon. Gentleman opposite would suggest what it was he required, they would endeavour to deal with the matter. He (Mr. Fowler) must, however, stand on the principle that secular documents relating to the parish ought to be in the custody of the Parish Council.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked what did the Government propose? They proposed to hand over the historical documents relating to the parish to those whom the Parish Council might wish or direct to receive them.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The secular documents only.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there were many documents which, though not ecclesiastical, were part and parcel of the history of the parish, written by the officers of the Church, and under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal these documents would be placed in the hands of the secular authority. Where were they to be taken to? They might be taken to a neighbouring town. The Government were not justified in sweeping
  1262
  away the old historical documents and parish libraries, and handing them over to the custody of persons who had not yet provided a chest or a house to place them in. There were many examples of the destruction of ancient documents by Municipalities, especially at the beginning of the century. Almost all the Welsh records in Carnarvonshire had been lost owing to careless custodians having carted them away because they could not read them, being written in Latin. It might be that the documents would get into the hands of a clerk who would take them to his home, and they would ultimately be lost. They should always separate ancient from modern documents. The Parish Council did not need anything to begin with except a minute-book, and there was no need for its going to the expense of buying a safe. New machinery should be of the simplest character. What was the idea? Anyone who wanted to see a certain document would have first to go to the Council, and then to the Vicar. That would be very inconvenient. All the Parish Council required was access to these documents. Why, the proposal was a gratuitous insult to the Church. The provision suggested by the Government was, in his opinion, only a provision for the better destruction of parish documents.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, he doubted whether the draftsman and enabled the right hon. Gentleman to carry out what he intended by this Amendment. The clause said that the documents should either remain in their existing custody, or such custody as the Parish Council might direct. But so long as they remained in their existing custody, there was no means whereby the Parish Council could get access to them, nor was there any provision to show that the ordinary was bound to obey the orders of the Parish Council. If they looked at Sub-section 8—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! Sub-section 8 is not now the question.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, he only referred to that sub-section for the purpose of showing the provision as to the person who could be called upon to obey the Council. The section as it stood raised the greatest doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had done what he desired to do, and, whether this Amendment was carried or not, all the Ordinary

  1263
  would have to do, it seemed to him (Mr. Darling), was, when he got the documents, to stick to them.
  MR. THORNTONsaid, that he had had some experience of valuable documents in village communities, and he desired to say that the Parish Councils could not be expected to take proper care of such documents. He did not speak without having had some experience. Four or five years ago, with an expert of the British Museum, he had had access to a chest containing the history of Harrow School, and he then saw documents of almost priceless value nearly destroyed in consequence of not having been properly taken care of. Well, if documents suffered when under the care of cultured men like the masters of Harrow School, in succeeding generations how could it be expected that they would be safe in the hands of Parish Councils? He did not mean to say that all villagers were non-literary. Indeed, although a fair sprinkling of men capable of guarding these documents existed amongst the country clergy, it would not be true to say that the present system was nearly perfect. They might find plenty of villagers perfectly capable of taking care of historical documents, but he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had gone fully into the matter and really thought that the best custodians of these priceless papers which, if half secular and half ecclesiastical, practically contained a mediæval history of England would be the Parish Councils. The ecclesiastical and secular history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is contained in these documents. He did not think, therefore, having regard to their value, that they should be confided to people less able to take care of them than those who had had the keeping of them hitherto. He thought it right to make this protest (which was founded on considerable experience) against the proposal of the Government.
  MR. LAWRENCEsaid, he was acquainted with an educational charity, of some importance, which happened to have a small dole attached to it amounting to 40s. a year. He wished to ask if the books of that educational charity would have to be transferred to the Parish Council under this Amendment, in consequence of the
  1264
  dole. It seemed to him that inasmuch as educational charities were the most important there should be words inserted in the Amendment preserving to the present trustees the care of the books.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)said, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether or not he was right in supposing that the clause would operate only in the case of existing documents? If the clause would be so limited, the word "existing" should be inserted. In reply to the hon. Member for Shropshire, he thought he was at liberty to say that if there should happen to be parochial books and other documents in the possession of Nonconformist Bodies, they would consider it no insult whatever to have them handed over to the Parish Council; but he would be surprised to find that any such documents are in their possession.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEwished to ask whether under parish books and documents, maps would be included, such as an ordnance maps which many parishes had acquired. Very often the person who had charge of the parish map did not know where to put it. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of awards under the Enclosure Acts as being documents of a purely secular character. No doubt they were, but the right hon. Gentleman would know that most of these were by law deposited with the Clerk of the Peace of the county, who was now clerk to the County Council. Would the Amendment require these awards to be taken out of their present custody?
  MR. BILLsaid, that no doubt there were many members of the Committee who were or had been Churchwardens. As one himself of 28 or 30 years' standing, he should like to back up the appeal made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge. In the parish in which he lived the Vestry book dated back from the beginning of the century. It contained, for the most part, the minutes of the parish in its ecclesiastical aspect; but, at the same time, interspersed amongst these minutes there were minutes of the election of Overseers, Assistant Overseers, and Highway Surveyors. The book in this way had a twofold character. At the same time it would not be right, he thought, from a

  1265
  Church point of view, that such a book should be taken out of the custody of the Church officials. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider what would happen if the Bill passed and the Parish Council obtained possession of a book such as he had described. The Easter Vestry would take place at the usual time, but it would be without its Vestry book, and the officials would have to go hat in hand to the Parish Council and ask for the loan of the book before the minutes could be inserted. The Committee would see that a proceeding of that kind would be derogatory to the Church. He therefore supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Tunbridge.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that a map would be a document under the clause. As to the enclosure awards, two copies of these were always made. One of these would be deposited with the Clerk of the Peace, and the other would be the parish document.
  MR. A. C. MORTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman's reply would apply to the tithe map?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to know if provision would be made for the official custody of these documents, for the Amendment only said "be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct." Was it not desirable to go more into detail on a matter of this kind? A good deal ought to be left to the discretion of Public Bodies; but it must be remembered that the Parish Council, especially in the case of small parishes, might consist of persons who were not perhaps antiquarian or particularly well practised with the custody of documents, and he thought some provision should be made in the Bill for these documents to be duly taken care of. Some reference had been made to the fact that many documents had suffered whilst in the custody of those who were at present responsible for them. He was afraid that was the case, and he thought some provision ought to be made for the proper custody of the documents. He did not know if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring words up to this. Very properly the right hon. Gentleman had left the ultimate
  1266
  responsibility in the County Council; but did he propose that that body should send out a roving commission to make inquiries all over the country? He (Mr. Lowther) took the second part of the Amendment to mean that if the attention of the County Council were drawn to the fact that the parish documents were not being properly cared for, they ought to take the necessary steps to insure their safe custody. So far as the care of the document, in the first instance, was concerned, the matter was now left to the absolute discretion of the Parish Council, and there was then to be this nebulous intervention on the part of the County Council. He did not think that if the Amendment were left in its present form the County Council would think it within its province to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman should indicate what machinery the County Council should adopt for the efficient exercise of what he might call this appellate jurisdiction.
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, that what struck him was the inadequacy of the provision for the care of these documents. The Parish Council would have no place where they could be put. There was no regular place now. They were kept where it was most convenient to keep them, and generally they had remained in the custody of the Incumbent of the parish. Under the Bill it would be difficult to see how the Incumbents were still to exercise that supervision, because, to a large extent, they would be ousted from their position. Still there was a suggestion in the clause which, if it were extended and made a little more definite would answer the purpose. The Amendment said—
  "Shall either remain in their existing custody, or. be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct."
  If some words were added to show that the Parish Council was not to remove the documents unless they had, to the satisfaction of somebody or other, found a better place for them, the security of those documents would be provided for. He supposed the proper place for keeping parish documents at present was the vestry of the church, but that, owing to dampness, was not always good for storing papers. To store them in the Incumbent's house laid them open to the danger of fire. In his own parish they

  1267
  were kept in the National schoolroom, and that in other parishes might be considered a satisfactory place. Of course, it would be a good thing to have in the parish a strong room such as could be found at the bankers', but that was out of the question in country villages, and it would be inconvenient to take the books and documents to a neighbouring town, as it would prevent ready access to them. He would suggest this was not an ecclesiastical question; it was an archæological and antiquarian question. It was most important that the documents should all be kept together, proper access to them being secured as might be required.
  MR. MACDONAsaid, that he had had charge of parochial documents for many years. They were in many cases most valuable, and he could not see where the religious element came in. He appealed to hon. Members on either side of the House whether it was not within their experience that many of these documents which were most valuable historically, were very carelessly kept. He knew cases in which public-houses in the neighbourhood of the Church had been the depositories of many of these documents. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge in so far as he was unwilling to allow Parish Councils to have charge of these documents. He (Mr. Macdona) would go further—and perhaps some Churchmen would think he was prepared to go too far—and say that he would take everyone of these documents away and deposit them where the Magna Charta itself was stored—namely, in the Rolls Court in London. He would do that without inflicting any injury on any of the present custodians of these documents, whom he would allow to retain their fees. Furthermore he would have copies of the documents made and deposited in the parish if the Parish Council desired to have them, and he would make these copies evidence in a Court of Law.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he had endeavoured to frame some words to carry out his intention, and they would appear in form on the Paper to-morrow, so that they could be further considered. His proposal was that all parish books
  1268
  and documents other than registers of marriages, baptisms, and burials, and books or documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the Church, or to ecclesiastical charities, should remain in their existing custody; but that all other parish books or documents should either remain in their existing custody or should be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council should direct. He submitted that that was an honest proposal to carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to the historical part of the matter it was agreed that it was not necessary to hand over to the Parish Council any ancient documents—that was to say, documents 50 or 100 years old—and some words might be inserted in the proposed clause to exempt such document. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that documents relating to Overseers' duties and matters of a secular character should be in the custody of the Parish Council, or that the Council should have access to such of them as were not in their custody. But from a historical point of view, he doubted if it were desirable to hand over ancient documents to a Body that was going to be a practical working Body. The Amendment he proposed would, he hoped, tend to shorten the discussion on the new clause of the Government.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having formulated his views in the shape of Amendments, and he could assure him that they would receive the most friendly consideration of the Government. They would probably form the basis of a satisfactory settlement of a most difficult question.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at two minutes before Twelve o'clock.