UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.

HC Deb 20 June 1905 vol 147 cc1114-74

[SECOND READING.]

Order for Second Reading road.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)

said the Bill of which he now had to move the Second Reading was introduced under what was known as the "ten minutes" rule in deference to a strong desire among Members on the Opposition side of the House to become acquainted with its provisions at the earliest possible moment. It was not the procedure he would have preferred, because it did not admit of adequate explanation and defence of a measure of the kind, and without such explanation prejudices were apt to take root and flourish, which possibly in the light of fuller discussion at the outset might never have been formed at all. A Bill like this was apt to be attacked on the one side because it went too far, and on the other side for not going far enough, and the present Bill was no exception to the rule. His hon. friend the Member for North Islington, as he gathered from the terms of the notice given, would regard the passing of the Bill as little short of a national calamity, and on the other hand he had received representations pressing him to introduce into the Bill Amendments for transferring to boards of guardians the powers proposed to be vested in the local and central authorities, empowering guardians to draw to an unlimited extent on the rates for giving employment without disfranchisement and at full trade-union wages, and finally throwing on the Imperial Exchequer the obligation to defray two-thirds or three-fourths of the expense so incurred. He hoped before he sat down to meet the objections of his hon. friend the Member for North Islington but first he would deal with the second class of objectors, for he thought they had entirely misconceived the real scope and intention of the measure and the significance of the limitations, without which, in the opinion of the Government, a measure of the kind could not possibly be successful.

The present Bill did not pretend to deal with the whole of the vast and complicated problem known as the "unemployed question," it did not attempt to do more than deal with a part, not altogether an unimportant part, but only a part of that problem, and any attempt to extend its principle to the whole field of unemployment would be foredoomed to disastrous failure. Anybody reading the text of the Bill with attention would see that the object throughout was to assist only a limited class of the unemployed, and even as regarded applicants of that class it was not intended that there should be any kind of obligation to find work for them, as was thrown on guardians to provide relief in cases of destitution. The limited class of the unemployed was defined in Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Bill as— Honestly desirous of obtaining work but temporarily unable to do so from exceptional causes over which the applicant has no control. And the limitation was extended to cases which, in the opinion of the local body to whom application is made, are— Capable of more suitable treatment under this Act than under the Poor Law. He wanted the House to understand the full significance of the definition—the desire was to exclude loafers, work-shyers, intermittent workers whose case was not exceptional, and any workman out of work from fault of his own. The exact interpretation of the words— Capable of more suitable treatment than under the Poor Law would, of course, depend on the general provisions of the Bill and the regulations to be made by the Local Government Board under Clause 4, and such regulations would include rules his right hon. friend the Member for South Bristol had laid down for the guidance of local and central committees, rules which would exclude distress not due to lack of employment, chronic distress, applicants of bad character, applicants not complying with conditions of residence, preference being given to workmen with esatblished homes and with wives and families. These cases would be dealt with in the regulations, but in addition the Bill contained two general directions which would be found in Sub-section 5 of Section 1. It was there provided that— The total weekly remuneration given for any temporary work so provided shall be less than that which would, under ordinary circumstances, be earned by an unskilled labourer for a full week's work. And, secondly— Except with the consent of the Local Government Board, temporary work shall not be so provided for the same person in more than two successive years. The first principle laid down in the proviso was not concerned with the question whether or not a given applicant was a fit person to be assisted under the Act. On that important point he would have a word or two to say later on. It did not refer directly to the character of the applicant. But the second was clearly intended to indicate that the relief of recurrent distress was not contemplated by the Bill, and that the unemployed for whom the Bill was intended were respectable workmen settled in a locality, hitherto accustomed to regular work, but temporarily out of employment through circumstances beyond their control, capable workmen with hope of return to regular work after hiding over a period of temporary distress. His meaning would be made more clear by reference to Mr. Charles Booth's classification of the inhabitants of the poorer districts of London:—A, the lowest, roughly corresponding to those who were hopelessly unemployed; B, those who were casually employed; C, those with intermittent employment; D, regular workers at low wages; and E, regular workers at standard rates of payment. The unemployed specially contemplated in the Bill were those who would be classed under D and E; it was not intended that work should be provided for classes A and B or generally for class C. A and B and the majority of class C would be regarded, in the language of the Bill, as persons more suitable for Poor Law treatment. Whether the present Poor Law organisation was adequate to deal with A, B, and the greater part of C was no doubt open to question, but the Bill made no claim to deal with the question of the unemployed as a whole, it attacked the problem only from above, leaving for future consideration the question whether any fresh measures should be devised for dealing with it from below. It would be safe, however, to say that, if treated by such methods from above and by more drastic treatment of the classes A and B, undoubtedly the task of Poor Law guardians would be greatly facilitated for dealing with the intermediate class.

He now passed to the objections which he gathered his hon. friend the Member for North Islington had to the Bill. His hon. friend's Amendment condemned the present proposals as— Contrary to the best interests of the State and especially detrimental to the poor themselves These were strong words, and in replying by anticipation he would state what he conceived to be the principle of the Bill in his own language. It was true the Bill for the first time would give statutory recognition to a system of giving employment relief by public authorities unencumbered by the disability attaching to Poor Law administration. It was also true that it professed to create and maintain machinery for organising such employment and, to a limited extent, providing employment relief at the expense of the rates, and that this machinery was to be outside the Poor Law. These were undoubtedly important innovations, but he thought that, at all events as regarded the first of them, the innovation was more apparent than real. For at least twenty years local authorities had been giving employment relief without disfranchisement at the expense of the rates. On this point he thought it would be well that they should rid themselves of all illusions. When a local authority put in hand a public work and engaged on that work persons who avowedly were unfamiliar with that work, simply because they were unemployed, the local authority was undoubtedly giving relief, and giving it at the expense of the rates, to the extent to which the cost of the labour actually employed exceeded the cost at which the labour could have been provided by a contractor. If the work was useless, it was clear that the entire sum so spent by the local authority was spent in relief. He had no doubt that in the last twenty years there had been a considerable expenditure by public authorities on works of a useless as well as a costly character. For the purposes of his present argument he would not raise the question of useless works. He was content to assume that the work put in hand by the local authorities had simply been expedited, and that, sooner or later, it would in any case have been undertaken. But let them look at what had been done during the past winter.

According to a Return that had been presented to the House at the instance of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea, a sum of something over £111,000 was spent during last winter by the Metropolitan authorities on work undertaken specially for finding work for unemployed workmen. It was not easy to calculate what that work would have cost had it been performed under ordinary circumstances, but he thought they would make a fairly generous estimate if they put the value of the work done, calculated in wages, at a little over £80,000. That meant that during last winter £30,000 was spent by the Metropolitan authorities in providing relief for the unemployed, and almost all of that sum which was not paid by his right hon. friend's central committee was paid out of the rates. The figures in regard to the provinces were not so complete, but, from a Return made by eighty-nine of the largest towns in the United Kingdom, it appeared that during the month of January, in seventy-four out of these eighty-nine places the local authority gave relief employment, and the men employed at one time or another during the month of January in the provinces numbered about 21,000. In London, during the same month, 20,000 or 21,000 men were employed; therefore, in the course of January, the local authorities were employing, without disfranchisement and at the expense of the rates, about 41,000 men. His information as to the cost of the work in the provinces was meagre, but it appeared that in five towns alone—Manchester, Salford, Leeds, Bradford, and Sheffield— about £36,000 was spent on employment of this kind from the end of the autumn to the end of the first week in March. Not only had it become a practically universal practice for local authorities to give employment relief in times of distress, but that practice had for many years received encouragement and recognition both officially and from Committees of that House. In 1886 his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham issued a circular to the boards of guardians containing a recommendation that in districts in which exceptional distress prevailed the guardians should confer with the local authority and endeavour to arrange with the latter for the execution of works on which unskilled labour might be immediately employed.

MR. WHITILEY (Halifax)

That applied to exceptional distress.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that was so. The circular, he continued, further suggested that the men employed should be engaged on the recommendation of the guardians as being persons whom it was undesirable to send to the workhouse or to treat as subjects for Poor Law relief. Since that occasion the Local Government Board had on many occasions sent out similar circulars. One, he thought, was issued at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton was President of the Board. There was also a circular sent out by his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland last winter, containing instructions to the committee established under his scheme, which formed the basis of this Bill.

Not only had successive circulars approved this form of relief being giving by local authorities, but a similar line had been taken by Committees of the House itself. A Committee of that House sat in 1895 to inquire into the question of distress from want of employment, and another Committee sat in 1896, and they had. under their consideration the policy of these circulars issued by the Local Government Board. These Committees reported that they were unable to see any valid objection to the policy advocated in these circulars. It had to be remembered that the local authorities were not advised to manufacture or create work with a view to giving employment, nor were they recommended to proceed with works at a time when the climatic conditions would prevent their being properly executed. But these Committees went somewhat beyond a mere endorsement of the policy already adopted by the Local Government Board. The Committee of 1895 recommended that the guardians of any Metropolitan union might be empowered, with the sanction of the London County Council, to agree with any sanitary authority within their union that, in consideration of the latter's employing such number of persons and during such periods as might be agreed upon, the guardians should make a contribution to the sanitary authority of an amount not exceeding one-half of the cost incurred in the employment of such persons, such, contribution to be a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. It would be observed that this proposal went considerably beyond the proposal in the Bill, for under the Bill any contribution from the central fund towards the works undertaken for the relief of distress by the local authority would come, not out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, but out of voluntary contributions. The Committee of 1896, after some hesitation, endorsed the recommendation of the Committee of 1895. They stated as their reason for endorsing that recommendation that in their opinion the proposed contribution from the central fund towards the work to be executed would not do more than cover the loss arising from the inferior efficiency of the labour employed in such circumstances and the extra expense of supervision and inquiry which would be necessary in connection with these works. It would be impossible to have a franker acknowledgment of the principle that work given to the unemployed by local institutions in such circumstances was, in effect, poor relief, although it was not accompanied by any of the disabilities attaching to the administration of the Poor Law. In view of this he thought he was justified in maintaining that the innovations proposed in the Government Bill were more apparent than real.

The methods adopted by the local authorities were open to the most serious criticism. If there was one rule better established than another in connection with relief work of this kind it was the rule that work should be made as continuous as possible. That rule had been systematically violated all during the past winter by various local authorities in the country, In one important county borough in the Midlands, the town clerk reported that the greater proportion of those on the list of unemployed only received four days work between November 16th and January 2lst. The pay was at the rate of 3s. 4d. a day, so that the majority of those on the ist of unemployed received, in the shape of relief, from the local authorities without disfranchisement, at the rate of 1s. 2d. a week for eleven weeks. That might be an extreme case, but it was a very common case indeed for the unemployed to obtain relief work for only two or three days or for them to be given in turn three or four days with the prospect of waiting for further work until their turn came round again. In some cases the unemployed were given work in alternate weeks, but it was quite the exception for work to be given for six days in the week and for several weeks consecutively, and practically one might say that that was hardly ever done except when the wholesome influence of the Central Committee appointed under his right hon. friend's scheme was able to make itself felt. In December the average number of days work given to each of the unemployed who were relieved amounted in the provinces to 7.2 days and in London to only 5.3 days. The figures for January were a little better, being nine days in the provinces and 6½ days in London. He thought there would be a general feeling that such discontinuous work probably did more harm than good, as it was not enough to preserve the workmen's homes from being broken up, and it was just the kind of work that specially at racted the man who did want to find regular employment. He could not but agree with the view of the surveyor of a county borough who stated that in his opinion the present system of relief by local authorities largely increased the number of men who were prepared to accept two days work a week, and go on in that way for the remainder of their existence. Another and most important defect in the methods of local authorities was the absence of sufficient discrimination between those who were deserving and those who were undeserving of relief of this kind. He could give many cases of this, but he would mention one of a London borough in which one day's work was given to all married men on the register before Christmas so as to ensure their having something on Christmas Day. That was really nothing more nor less than a charitable dole, and could not possibly do any good.

MR. H. LAWSON (Tower Hamlets, Mile End)

Was that Poplar?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he would not give the name, but it was not Poplar. This defective discrimination was usually accompanied by discontinuity of work and by exiguous earnings, which were really doles under the mask of wages. An instance of this was afforded by an urban district just outside London which in September last passed a resolution that 30s. a week should be the minimum wage given to its employees, and when the accounts of the council came to be audited it was stated, and not denied, that persons had actually left the employment in which they were regularly engaged in order to take jobs upon the relief works opened by the council for the unemployed so that they might get the advantage of the minimum wage.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

Was that done under the scheme this winter?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

replied that it was net—it was in a district outside London. The position under a system of administration such as he had described was correctly summed up by a committee of the Charity Organisation Society in a report issued by them in November last where they said— There are at present two public relief agencies in the field—the Poor Law under the orders of the Local Government Board, and the borough councils who have a free hand. What was the best method of dealing with that situation? He sup-posed his hon. friend would probably say that the proper way to deal with the situation was to prevent the local authorities from giving employment relief in any shape or form, and to insist that boards of guardians should return to stricter methods of Poor Law relief and administration. That was heroic, but he very much questioned whether, in times of exceptional distress, it would be found to be practical politics. The feeling that respectable persons who were out of employment through no fault of their own, but simply by reason of the fluctuations in our industrial system, should have some prospect before them other than the workhouse or the guardians' relief yard was one that must be reckoned with. Moreover, it was a growing feeling, and, if his hon. friend had his way, the effect would very probably be a reaction which would carry us very much further in those directions which he himself was anxious to avoid than the modest proposals of the Bill. In the opinion of the Government it was not wise at the stage we had reached to have recourse to a simple non possumus, or to interpose a mere dam or barrier in the way of public opinion instead of endeavouring to guide it into channels which should lead to the least harm and be most likely to be fruitful of good. Therefore, their object had been to create a permanent machinery which should organise and combine and influence in directions approved by experience the actual efforts that should be made at the present time for the relief of the unemployed. Still more, they wanted to provide machinery which should be able accurately and properly to discriminate between the classes whom it was desirable to relieve by this Bill and those whom, they thought, ought to be more properly dealt with under the Poor Law. The question of discrimination was the crux of the problem. If they could not adequately distinguish between the deserving and the undeserving, if both alike were to be mingled in the, receipt of the benefits intended by the Bill, it was quite possible that the measure would do more harm than good, rather increasing than diminishing the difficulties of the Poor Law authorities. But he did not believe that adequate discrimination was impossible. That was proved, to his mind, even by the working of his right hon. friend's scheme, under which, on the whole, the discrimination had been carried out not unsatisfactorily, but he should hope for very much better results when they had a machinery which was permanent, with a staff of its own ultimately, with a body of experience and tradition behind it, controlled by the regulations of the Local Government Board and, in addition, compelled to cut its coat according to its cloth. It had to be remembered that none of the proposed new bodies would be entitled—with one exception to which he would refer—to provide employment except out of voluntary contributions.

His hon. friend the Member for Chelsea was very much concerned at the prospect of a new charge being imposed on the rates to assist the unemployed. But what was the nature of the expenditure that would be sanctioned out of the rates under the Bill as introduced? In the Bill it was expressed negatively; it might with advantage be expressed more precisely and positively, and he would be prepared to consider Amendment with that object in view. The purpose for which under the Bill they propose that it should be possible to draw upon the rates were four—(1) the expenses of the establishment of the local and central bodies, (2) the expenses of providing and maintaining labour exchanges and employment registers, (3) the expenses connected with migration and emigration, and (4) the expenses of acquiring, equipping and maintaining farm colonies and providing work for the unemployed on those colonies. As regarded the second and third of these proposals there was no very great novelty. The London municipal boroughs were already empowered to establish labour bureaux, and although the law on the point was somewhat obscure, several local authorities in the provinces had done the same thing. With regard to number three, not only the guardians but the county councils had the power to use the rates at the present time for aiding emigration. As to the expense of the establishment and the staff of the local and central bodies, that was merely a necessary corollary to the central principle of the Bill, which was to establish such bodies and make them permanent. He did not suppose any one was likely to quarrel with such proposals except those root-and-branch opposed to the Bill. The expenditure upon farm colonies stood upon a somewhat different footing, but he thought it would be very undesirable that the central bodies should not be given an opportunity of trying the experiment of farm colonies, and if the experiment was to be given a fair trial it was clear such farm colonies must form a permanent part of their machinery. They could not improvise a farm colony and, once they had established a farm colony, it was necessary to provide for it maintenance from a source which could be relied upon year in and year out.

MR. H. LAWSON

Will the farm colonies be preparatory to emigration?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he was coming to that point. It seemed to follow that at all events the expense o acquiring, equipping, and maintaining a farm colony should be payable out of the rates. But he might be asked why go beyond that; why provide in the Bill not only that farm colonies might be acquired, maintained, and equipped out of the rates, but also that employment thereon might be provided out of the rates? Was not that an exception to the rule generally laid down in the Bill that expenses of that kind were to be drawn not from the rates but from voluntary contributions? He admitted there was some force in the objection, but really the considerations which had moved the Government were principally those of administrative convenience. It would be difficult and perhaps impossible to distinguish between the expense of maintenance and the expense incurred in providing work for the unemployed on the farm colony, and for that reason no attempt was made to distinguish the two in the Bill. Whether the item was likely to be an important one or not was a doubtful matter. He thought for many reasons farm colonies were not adapted to meet the requirements of the large majority of the unemployed for whom the Bill was intended. Farm colonies, in his opinion, should be primarily for tae purpose of training in agricultural pursuits persons who were willing to emigrate or to change from a town life altogether to life in the country. He thought there would, amongst the better class unemployed in the large centres of industry, always be a percentage of men who were willing to leave town life and take to country life. What the percentage was he would not like to attempt to conjecture, and he did not think anything but experience would show, but that there was an appreciable number of such men he did not for a moment doubt. The message of hope which had been conveyed in a report just issued by Mr. Rider Haggard should remind them that the potentialities in that direction were possibly considerably more than many people, as a rule, suspected.

Before he sat down there were one or two points to which he would like to advert, upon which some misconception seemed to have arisen. The proviso to Sub-section 5 of the Bill had been interpreted to mean that the standard rate of wages paid in the district for any class of work should not be paid for work provided for the unemployed by the central body. That was a mistake. The words had been chosen so as to admit of the payment of the standard wage per hour. It was only the standard remuneration measured by the week which must be something less than the rate for unskilled labour. That would be attained by reducing the hours rather than by reducing the pay per hour. He would be quite willing to adopt another form of words if a better could be suggested. It seemed, moreover to be commonly thought that the Bill was compulsory in London, but optional in the provinces. That was not quite correct even with regard to counties; and with regard to county boroughs, which were much more important in this matter, it was not correct at all. Even in counties where bodies had not been constituted under the Act the county council would be under the obligation to constitute a special committee charged with the duty of establishing a labour exchange and employment registry. The effect would be to create a kind of network of labour bureaux and employment registries all over the county, which might possibly in the end prove to be one of the most important results of the Act.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

Will these be under the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said they would be under the Local Government Board. They would, of course, be under the bodies created by the Act, but under the Local Government Board so far as the latter might make regulations respecting them. As to the county boroughs, the adoption of the provisions of the Bill was not optional, but compulsory, only subject to postponement with the consent of the Local Government Board. He conceived the Local Government Board would not postpone without very good cause being shown. He entirely sympathised with the idea that the unemployed might be attracted into London if the Bill applied to London alone. In his judgment the best safeguard against that danger—undoubtedly a considerable danger—was to be found in the provision of a sufficient period of residence. In his judgment such period ought not to be less than twelve months. He was quite willing to consider the omission of that provision as to postponement altogether, if the county boroughs did not strongly object, which he did not for a moment suppose they would. As to Clause 4, dealing with the powers of the Local Government Board, very insufficient attention had been given to that. The powers were very wide indeed, and rendered unnecessary the insertion of a variety of safeguards and limitations which otherwise would have had their place in the text of the Bill. The effect of the Bill, if passed, would be not indeed to bring the borough councils under the direct control of the Local Government Board but to bring them indirectly within the influence of that Board through the new administrative bodies which the Bill created. The Local Government Board were fully cognisant of the very great and heavy responsibility which the Bill would throw upon them and the importance of the part which the central authority would have to play, especially at the outset, if the advantages which the promoters hoped from that measure were destined to be realised. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question propose, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said he rose to move "That it is most inexpedient for the national welfare, contrary to the best interests of the State and especially detrimental to the poor themselves, by tending to reduce their self-reliance and independence, that a system of relief, whether supported by municipal rates or Imperial taxation, be established in addition to and outside the existing Poor Law." He was aware he would lay himself open possibly to being misunderstood, and that it would probably be said that he was out of sympathy with some of the great social questions of the present day. They were all agreed that the condition of the country at the present time was not all they could desire, and in objecting to this Bill he claimed to be actuated by the same motives as hon. Gentlemen who supported it in every way. He did not think that this was the right way to look at this problem. When a patient was ill they did not give him everything he asked for, and it was not considered unkind to refuse what was not for the patient's good. He felt very keenly the position of the poor, with whom it had been his interest and lot to work for many years. He was getting well on in life and he had seen as much as any of those who were taking an interest in this problem. He objected to this measure not only be cause he thought it was contrary to the welfare of the whole country, but because in his opinion, it would be detrimental to the interests of the poor people whom it was specially proposed to relieve. If the House would bear with him in the somewhat lengthened remarks he had to make, he would endeavour to show that all past experience proved that, in doing this, they were really aggravating the sufferings and hardships of the people, and, instead of relieving, tending largely to increase their misfortune.

What were the objects of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman who introduced it had described its provisions, and, verbally, it was correct to say that the measure did not give the right to employment, but he believed that the measure constructively, and by the general interpretation of everybody, did give the right to every person to receive employment from the public authorities. It had established in the public mind the idea—and this to him was a startlingly novel feature—that they were going to pass an Act of Parliament which would give people the right to obtain employment when they could not, or did not get it by themselves. He was sure that was the idea which the public had of the Bill, and in order to show this, he would refer to one or two speeches which had been made. At a meeting of the Labour Joint Committee the other day, a resolution was passed in the following terms— That we express our opinion that the recognition of the responsibility of the public authorities to provide work for the unemployed is a sound principle upon which to base any attempt to deal with unemployment. The committee consisted of gentlemen of great position in the industrial world who had taken a deep interest in the subject, and that resolution appeared to show clearly that they regarded the Bill as providing a means by which the State would find employment for those who needed it. At a meeting the other day, after the Leicester unemployed arrived in London, Alderman Sanders, who had a great deal to do in getting up the meeting, expressed the opinion that the Leicester men were right in coming to London to make a demonstration, not to the King who was powerless in the matter, but to the Members of Parliament who could help, and would do so as soon as sufficient pressure was brought to bear upon them, and he added— A Bill should be passed to enable every honest workman to get work when he demanded it and could not get it from a private employer. These were serious considerations. This Bill had a number of safeguards connected with it which would be of no earthly use when it became law. These safeguards would fail at once if they survived the Committee stage. Conceive it how they would, if they passed this measure it would be implied that Parliament had laid down for the first time that work should be supplied for the unemployed throughout the country. He ventured to say that the House ought to think very long and very carefully before they passed such a measure. This was not a Party question in any sense. It was a question of the very gravest moment for the welfare of the country. It was not, as he would show presently, a new experiment. It was a policy which, as past experience had shown, brought disaster and serious consequences with it. He ventured to assert that the want of employment was small, but, even if it was large, he said emphatically that it would be absolutely impossible to carry out such a Bill as this. If the real demand for employment was large the provisions to be found in this Bill would be as nothing in doing what was wanted, but the attempt to carry it out would produce evils of a very far-reaching nature. It would create conditions which would be very difficult to alter. He considered that the bringing in of the Bill had already done a great deal of mischief, and the passing of it would do an immense deal of evil to the community at large.

In looking at this measure from the practical point of view the first question to be considered was—Is the employment to be remunerative or unremunerative? If there was any idea that the work that was to be supplied was to be remunerative, was it conceivable that a public body could find it sooner or better than an employer or the unemployed themselves? Surely the trade of this country had been built up by the industry and enterprise of the people—employers and employed—and not by the State, and, therefore, if the work which was to be done under the provisions of this Bill was to be remunerative there was no need to have the Bill at all, because work would be forthcoming without it. He did not believe that a body of aldermen, a town council, or even the President of the Board of Trade, could do anything to assist trade if it was to be of a remunerative character. But the fact was that the work which would be supplied would not be of a remunerative character. It would be work which would cost a great deal more than it was worth, and, therefore, it would be of an unprofitable nature. There was no difficulty, of course, in creating work if money was provided to pay for it. Stones could be carted up a hill and then carted down again, but the only way to get the poor of the country to make progress was by remunerative work. Therefore, it seemed to him that what was really proposed was to pass an Act of Parliament to create unprofitable work at the cost of someone else—that was to say, that the loss should be cast on the ratepayers or the taxpayers. The real crux of the Bill was that it was to provide work for those who could not get it for themselves, and that the loss resulting from this unremunerative work should fall upon others.

The next question was—Who is going to pay for the unremunerative work? They must face the absolute facts of the case. The Bill said that the loss was to be borne the rates. This proposal, he noticed, was not quite accepted by all the supporters of the Bill. Many persons wished to throw the loss on taxation. It was germane to the question to refer to what would be the effect of throwing this additional burden on the rates. People were apt to forget the present condition of the rates, and he would refer to the facts in connection with the borough of Islington, part of which he had the honour to represent in that House. In the last ten years for one thing and another there had bean an addition to the rates to the extent of 1s. 7½d. in the £, while, at the same time the debt of that parish had increased by £1,383,000. That 1s. 7½d. on the rateable value of £2,000,000 meant that at the present time there was taken from the ratepayers of the borough of Islington £162,500 a year more than ten years ago Was not that a somewhat startling fact? Was not that, enough to account for some of the want of employment? They were going by this Bill to increase the cost to the rates. He said emphatically that they must consider where this great cost was to come from and who would have to pay it. In 1901 in the same parish there were 582 empty houses, and there were now 1,481. According to the borough treasurer, if those houses were occupied there would be a reduction of 3d. in the £ in the rates of Islington alone. They were driving away the people, and by that means causing a greater burden to those at the bottom of the scale who were suffering most now, and who had great difficulty in keeping their head above water. It was a startling fact, as showing how the rates were increasing, that in April last in Islington 6,800 summonses were issued for rates in the last quarter against people who could not pay. The local paper said this showed how the people were being sucked dry by the existing rates. And yet it was proposed on what he thought were very insufficient reasons to impose an additional burden which he ventured to say would, in a short time, amount to a figure they had no idea of at present, to provide unprofitable work for the unemployed at rates of payment he should presently refer to.

What was true of Islington was true also of the whole country. The rateable value of England and Wales, including London, in 1874 was £115,000,000, and in 1902 £l95,000,000, and, instead of there being a reduction in the rates, they had increased from £20,000,000 in 1874 to £42,500,000 now. Nor was that all. The grants from the Imperial Exchequer, which amounted in 1874 to £1,500,000, had now reached £12,500,000, so that the total rates had increased in England and Wales from £21,500,000 in 1874 to £55,000,000 now. These somewhat startling facts were enough to show that the House should pause and consider seriously when it was proposed that a great additional outlay should take place. The Bill also authorised the local ties to borrow money. This power to borrow was, to his mind, one of the curses of the present day. They were borrowing in all directions and piling up indebtedness, the cost of which fell more and more on the poorest of the poor, who were struggling not to sink but to keep their heads above water. This cause must lead to a shrinkage of employment. This large additional sum of £162,500 was taken out of the pockets of a population of 350,000, nearly all of whom were comparatively small people, and there must be, therefore, less for them to spend and to fructify in producing employment. He maintained that the large increase in the rates had done not a little to increase the shortage of labour, which was the very trouble that was proposed to be dealt with by the Bill.

It was said, "Do not put this charge on the rates but on the taxes." The Labour Joint Committee said that the Exchequer should supply most of the cost, because it was easier to pay out of the Exchequer than out of the rates. But what did that mean? It meant further taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, and alcohol. It was said that the receipts from the duty on alcohol were decreasing, and it was to be hoped that the habits of the people were improving in that respect. Then, if that were the case, it meant that the income-tax was to be increased, because there was a general idea that the rich ought to pay, and that the rich were the people who paid income-tax. He had no objection to the rich paying a good deal; he, himself, should like to be able to pay more income-tax. But was it a fact that they were making the rich pay more in increasing the income-tax, and not injuring the poor far more seriously? In Schedule D of the income-tax there were 250,000 persons paying income-tax on incomes under £200 a year; and there were only 630 in the same schedule with incomes over£5,000 a year; and less than 9,000 with over £1,000 a year. That showed that if the income-tax were increased, it would add immensely to the burden on small persons at the bottom of the scale. He had been a little amused when the right hon. Gentleman referred to voluntary contributions. Now, did the right hon. Gentleman, or any one else, really believe that after this Bill was passed into law there would be any voluntary contributions for the unemployed? What was the use of blinding their eyes to that fact? He considered that that clause of the Bill might as well come out at once. His contention was that if this Bill passed employment would be given to the unemployed at the cost of the employed, and that the evil of unemployment, instead of being relieved, would only be aggravated in every possible way. Thousands who were now struggling manfully to keep their heads above water and pay their way would be dragged down by excessive burdens of rates or taxes and soon join the ranks of the unemployed and aggravate the evil we all deplored.

The next point to consider was the working of the Bill. In the first place it would create a new spending authority for the purpose of providing relief. That was a most serious step to contemplate. From a letter which appeared in The Times the previous day, there was no doubt that a large section of those gentlemen who had been at work in administering the Mansion House Unemployed Fund during the last six months saw great danger in creating this new spending department for providing relief. Let them say what they would, this employment was relief. He wished to press that point. Some people talked as if this employment was not relief, and that the men who received it were to a certain extent independent; but the fact could not be got over that it was relief, and that by the Bill a new upper-class relief agency was going to be created. It was impossible to conceive the enormous difficulties that would arise in the working of the measure. There would be continued rivalry between different bodies as to how these man were to be relieved.

The next point was as to the selection of the recipients of employment. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that that was the crux of the question; and that if the mode of selecting the recipients was not carefully guarded more harm than good would be done. As the Bill was drawn it stated that— The local body shall make themselves acquainted with the conditions of labour within their area, and inquire into and discriminate between any applications made to them from persons unemployed; and if the local body are satisfied that any such applicant is honestly desirous of obtaining work, but is temporarily unable to do so from exceptional causes over which he has no control. … then they may endeavour to obtain work for the applicant. Surely that was extremely vague. He would ask a practical question. How long was a man to be out of work before he became eligible to get a grant? Was he to be eligible after the first week? Was there to be any test of thrift on the man's part? Was he to show any indication of foresight or providence? These were matters of the very greatest importance, and unless these inquiries were gone into very carefully the result would be very much worse than any other form of relief under the Poor Law. Then, were women out of work to be eligible for relief; or were clerks who earned smaller salaries than the wages of a good mechanic? Some of the saddest cases in his experience were those of clerks who had to wear a black coat and hat, who lived respectable lives at a salary less than a good mechanic, and who at forty, fifty, or sixty years of age were thrown out of employment. Surely these men should be eligible. [Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why not?] They formed a large part of the unemployed, but would not come forward to demand relief, although these were the people who really ought to be looked after.

There was another point: if a man could not get work at his trade at full trade-union rates, was he to be considered out of work and to be provided with work? That was a serious question to ask. He knew perfectly well that a great deal would turn on that particular point, because, after all, a man might be able to earn a living at a smaller rate of wages than the trade-union scale, and yet that would not be sweating. He maintained that it was a very startling and sweeping thing to pass a law which would declare that because a man could not get the full trade-union rate of wages at his own trade, although he might get work in another trade at lower wages, he was to be considered unemployed? If that was to be the case, he contended that they would undermine the very essence of the trade of the country. He insisted emphatically that they must, in this Bill consider, in the selection of candidates for relief employment, whether these men could earn a sufficiency for themselves and families in other directions even if they could not get the full trade-union rate of wages.

As regarded wages, he had heard with some surprise the remarks of he right hon. Gentleman on the subject, because he thought that the Bill provided that the wages to be earned were to be smaller than the wages earned by unskilled labour. The clause provided that the wages paid should be less than was ordinarily earned by unskilled labour during a full week's work. That would appear to mean that the trade-union rate of wages would be paid for a short time during the week provided that the total earnings during a week did lot exceed that earned by unskilled labour for a whole week. That practically meant that the full rate of wages was to be maintained. He protested against that. Let them have the matter out. It was no good fencing with the question. Let hon. Gentlemen understand that, if the Bill passed, every unemployed workman would receive at the public expense full trade-union rates of wages whether employed on remunerative work or not. Indeed, if this were so, and it seemed to be the fact, the Bill was even more mischievous than he thought it was. What happened in his own parish? There was a certain amount of unemployment, and a number of men were employed at a lower rate of wages than the trade-union rate. The borough engineer declared that the men were not worth the trade-union rate; but it was settled by the council that the men should be paid full trade-union rates, and they were paid back pay at those rates. He might be behind the times; but it appeared to him extraordinary to pass an Act of Parliament by which men were to be paid full trade union rates at the public expense, and by people many of whom were not as well off as the men who were paid. The Poor Law Commission of 1834 said that all relief afforded to the able-bodied or their families should be treated as a loan, and was to be recoverable out of their subsequent wages. There was no such clause in the present Bill. Further, the Commission declared— The first and most essential of all conditions, a principle which we find universally admitted, is that his (i.e., the recipient of aid or a pauper) situation as a whole shall not be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class. Throughout the evidence it is shown that in proportion as the condition of any pauper class is elevated above the condition of independent labourers, the conditions of the independent class is depressed, their industry is impaired, their employment becomes unsteady, and their remuneration in wages is diminished … Every penny bestowed that tends to render the condition of the pauper more eligible than that of the independent labourer is a bounty on indolence and vice. That was the statement of the great Commission of 1834. Now, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill provided that a mechanic should have the full rate of wages.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

All I said was that the Bill did not prevent it.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said that that came to the same thing. The matter was very important. The only possible way of influencing the man that would be affected by the Bill was that he should be paid such wages that he should have every inducement to leave the work to be provided under the Act as soon as possible, so as to get higher wages for himself, and that he should have the keenest interest in this respect himself. He was glad that he had raised this matter, although it might be used against him in hits own constituency. If the Bill removed the only incentive for a man to return to his ordinary work, it would effect more mischief than he had imagined.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that the hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the total weekly remuneration must not exceed that which could be earned by an unskilled labourer for a full week.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

asked if he were to understand that a man, even if employed continuously, would not receive a greater wage than would be earned by an unskilled labourer.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Certainly.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said that in that case he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's remark about trade-union wages being paid.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that what he stated was that if trade-union rates were paid the total remuneration must be something less than that which could be earned by an ordinary unskilled labourer.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said then that meant that the men were only to be employed for a certain number of hours. A deputation to the right hon. Gentleman, however, urged— Unless all limitations upon rates of wages paid, which are a serious menace to trades unions, are removed, the Bill cannot be accepted by organised labour, and we shall then call upon all friends of labour in Parliament to reject it. That meant that the trades unions insisted that the men to be employed should be paid the full trade-union rate of wages. He protested against that principle. Every man might not be able to get employment; but it was monstrous that he should be paid the full trade-union rate of wages on work which could not be remunerative and might involve considerable loss, a loss to be made up by others, many of whom were but little better off than the recipients themselves.

As to the emigration clause, reasonable and natural emigration was, of course, necessary; but it was not the unemployed or the ne'er-do-wells that emigrated. The people who emigrated were the strong and the healthy; the immigrants, on the contrary, were a most startling class. It reminded him of a man who drew whiskey out of a cask replenishing it with water, and then wondering why it had not maintained its strength. He did not object to natural emigration; but to frame a Bill to get rid of the best portion of the working population, and at the same time to admit the worst class of immigrant, was one of the most extraordinary pieces of logic which he had ever heard.

Then as to farm colonies, surely they were rather a myth. He could not see how they could effect much good. They certainly would not relieve the want of employment among the better class of workers in London; and they were more a name than a reality. He had read of cases when men on a farm colony were paid 25s. a week, whereas the wages of labourers in the locality were very much lower. Surely that could not tend to promote contentment in the district. It meant that a man could come up to London and be sent back again as an unemployed at a higher wage than he was previously earning. The interesting Report issued recently by the Farm Colonies for the Unemployed last winter bore immensely upon this subject. The superintendent of the colony reported "that there were a large proportion of men who required the closest supervision in order to get from them anything like the standard of an ordinary day's work. The general lack of ambition in the men was very noticeable." He thought it was a very strong order to send such men to farm colonies. Such men ought to come under, and be dealt with by, the Poor Law, and for his part he could not see why they should be picked cut to receive these advantages which were denied to others.

With regard to the question of disfranchisement he had no doubt the clause dealing with that was kindly meant, and he knew he should offend a great many hon. Members when he said that he considered that to put in a clause that those who received this kind of relief should not be disfranchised was wrong. They knew these people were unfortunate and they were all sorry to see misfortune, but was it right or politic, was it for the good of other people and for these people themselves that the old notion that taxation and representation should go together should be done away with, and that we should establish a law that a man should be kept by the community and should also make the laws for the community and vote on his own relief? If this were to be voted on by ballot in this House he did not believe such a principle would be for a moment conceded. It was only the fact that they were afraid to say what they ought to say that such a suggestion became possible. In his judgment it was infinitely kinder and better to hold out the idea that it was better for a man to do what he could for himself and keep his vote. This Bill created a class of persons supported by the rates who were not paupers; a superior class of social dependents, and the principle suggested was against the whole experience of the Poor Law Inquiry of 1834. They all regretted failures, but to tell a man he was not a failure did not make that man a success. The wise policy was to uphold that and induce the man to make every effort not to fail, rather than to make it easier, as this Bill did, for him to fail and then to tell him he was not a failure and that he was as good a citizen as he was before.

As to the effect of this Bill. First he asked what would be its effect upon London. The Bill was said to be compulsory in London and not elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had somewhat altered that, but whether it was altered or not there was a great deal of difference between London and elsewhere. He thought it was very cruel on London that this difference should be made; in fact, he could not think of anything, more unfair to London than this Bill. They had all read the account of the march of the unemployed on London. It was one of the saddest incidents he had known. But this Bill would promote and encourage these unhappy incidents. What they wanted was to encourage people to leave London rather than to come to London, and to make them understand that there was much more to do out of London than in it. The effect of this Bill on London would be of a most disastrous character. The remedy suggested by some was to make this Bill compulsory in the whole of the country, but he protested against that. If it was a bad Bill it ought to be dropped altogether, because if it were carried out all over England the effect would become so large and so alarming as to be beyond all Government control. What effect would this Bill have on employment itself? Would it increase or decrease employment? The whole question was one of employment, and the statistics certainly suggested there had been some exaggeration as to the shortage of employment during the past winter. But if there was a shortage of employment this Bill would tend rather to increase than decrease the shortage. Would this Bill tend to reduce the output or increase the work of London? Had it not already tended to make it more impossible to carry out works except at a loss? Had it not tended to discourage enterprise, and would it not tend to the increase of that municipal socialism, which in his opinion was a blot on the country, and prevent private enterprise creating profitable work? All these were facts which would tend largely to do away with the employment of labour, because capital was shy and would not enter into enterprises unless there was a fair chance that those enterprises would be successful, and further capital was not stationary. It could move from place to place. He thought the effect of this Bill would be to discourage enterprise and so decrease the amount of labour now employed.

Then what would be its effect upon wages? The Parliamentary Committee was alive to the danger that it must lower wages, and they said that it must not in any way interfere with wages. But he would ask any man of business in the House whether it was conceivable that a law could be carried out, giving unprofitable employment to thousands of the community without affecting wages. Was it not certain that such a thing must lower wages, and to try to prevent it as hopeless as attempting to stop the rise of the tide. The money necessary to pay the wages did not grow nor drop from the skies; it was simply thrift in the past made use of in the present, and if this Bill were passed it must eat up some of the funds which otherwise would go to supply wages in the future, and therefore the result of this Bill must be to reduce the wage fund of the community. One hon. Member recently said that we did not pay people enough; we did not pay a living wage and that therefore there must be a Bill of this sort in order to give employment to unemployed. No doubt there was some truth in that. There was a time when labour did not get its fair share, but it was open to doubt whether now a good deal of the want of employment now was not due to the fact that capital could not get a remunerative return. Many people hesitated to embark in enterprise now who would have embarked formerly, and that in itself looked as if enterprise was not so profitable as before, and, that being the case, the result again must be to reduce wages. The affect of this Bill must be ultimately to reduce the aggregate amount paid in wages. Nearly the whole burden of the Report of the Commission of 1834 dwelt on this question of supplementing wages by rates or other public funds, and it proved conclusively that it was fatal to the employed and unemployed alike. That showed conclusively the way in which this Bill would be likely to interfere with the progress of trade and industry and to reduce wages, and to become a blight on enterprise and on industry. He would like, with reference to the effect on industry and enterprise, to quote from letter in that day's paper. The Bethnal Green Committee reported— Probably the most unsatisfactory result of having given work in the borough to 1,748 of the unemployed during the last winter has been the creation of a class of men who regard them-selves as dependent upon a council for work. These men do not realise that the work given to them has been for the sole purpose of helping to tide them over a bad season. Many men regard the council as a large employer of labour able to continuously provide additional work to which they have established a right by having their names entered in the register. The immediate effect on the men themselves is directly calculated to lower their independence and to reduce their resourcefulness. That was a very grave consideration. The real effect of the Bill was pointed out in good words by Mr. Loch, the secretary of the Charity Organisation Society, a man who had done more for the poor—

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

No, no.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

A man who had done more for the poor than almost anyone else— The chief danger, however, is the creation of a new, and ultimately a very large, class of State dependents. There is abundant evidence that we have during the last twenty year been creating such a class. Since the unemployed circular of the Local Government Board which was issued in 1886, the demand for employment relief from local bodies has continually increased. Larger numbers have been relieved by them, and popular intimidation has often forced the hand of reluctant authorities…It may be expected, therefore, that the local demand for employment relief will continue and will be met by the borough councils, and will be supplemented by the central committee dealing with selected cases. It this be so, the Bill will not stop the growth of dependents upon, employment relief, but will supplement it and stimulate it. Then as to the cost; could the Bill do what it professed at anything like the amount mentioned? A halfpenny or a penny rate had been referred to. A halfpenny rate in London represented about £80,000. Last winter the Mansion House Fund raised about £50,000, and the local authorities spent a great deal in addition; 40,000 or 50,000 people applied, and about 2,600 were relieved by that fund.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)

The hon. Member is making a grave error. He says that £50,000, were raised by the central committee, and that the municipalities spent considerable sums in addition. He then states that only 2,600 were relieved, ignoring the fact that those 2,600 had no reference whatever to the relief given by the municipalities.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said the 2,600 were relieved entirely by the £50,000—as he thought he stated. The 2,600 were relieved by the Mansion House Fund, and in addition large sums were raised, as at Islington and elsewhere, by the municipalities.

MR. WALTER LONG

My hon. friend is still not stating the case correctly. The central committee had considerable sums to dispose of, and they applied the money in two ways: first, by direct assistance to men employed in particular works, and, secondly, by contributions to local authorities for work which they were carrying out. The 2,600 were the men employed directly by the central committee.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

said the point he was trying to make was as to the cost and it appeared that last winter a sum roughly equivalent to the proceeds of a halfpenny rate was expended. According to the last Returns of the Board of Trade there were 5 per cent. of unemployed, but if a really serious shortage of employment arose throughout the country the percentage would be nearer 15 or 20. A penny rate throughout the country would bring in about £1,000,000 a year—a sum which would be absolutely infinitesimal compared with the cost of such a shortage of employment. Twenty years ago Professor Leoni Levi Calculated that the wages of the country amounted to £1,000,000,000 a year. The amount now would be considerably larger, but even on £l,000,000,000 a shortage of employment represented by 10 or 15 per cent. would mean £100,000,000 or £150,000,000, to meet which a penny rate would be absolutely useless. The demand for employment, if once granted, would mean that employment must be given whatever happened, and this penny rate would be like the 3d.rate in connection with education; it would be but the beginning of a gigantic expenditure, loading to an enormous demoralisation of the people.

Having shown the object, the working, he effect, and the cost of the Bill, he naturally asked whether it was necessary to pass such a measure as that now proposed. Was employment worse than it was twenty years ago? According to statistics it was not. In fact, it might fairly be said that things were not as bad now as they formerly were. He was now coming to the most thorny portion of his remarks. It was a dangerous thing for a politician to say, but he was emphatically of opinion that many of the causes leading to the present trouble were curable by the people themselves. Trades unionists would not deny that wages were higher, and the necessaries of life cheaper than they used to be. One of he great points in connection with the Report of 1834 was the ignorance of the people, but for thirty years we had had compulsory education, so that that plea was no longer valid. With wages higher, education universal, and commodities cheaper, was it not a strange thing that pauperism was growing rapidly?

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

Only since the war.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY

pointed out that one of the most startling facts was that in the last week's Returns, although employment was better than a year ago, there was a considerable increase in pauperism. In considering this problem it was necessary to face the question of the expenditure of the people on alcohol and amusements. Although so much was heard of the lack of employment and the increase of poverty, yet the expenditure on alcohol per family in the United Kingdom amounted to £19 14s.11d. It could not be said that expensive wines were the cause of the high expenditure, as the amount per family in England was £19 4s. 7d. without wine, and only slightly over £20 wine included. Did not that show that the condition of the people arose largely from causes which without this Bill the people themselves, if they chose, could amend to a very great extent? If wages were better, necessities cheaper, and employment not worse, and at the same time the expenditure on alcohol and other extravagances was maintained, was it not clear that the people themselves, and not the State or the community, should be appealed to for real relief?

This was not the first time such an experiment had been tried of finding employment for the unemployed. He had already referred to the condition of the country previous to 1834. Every effort was made to supplement wages by the system of municipal employment, but it was found to be so harmful to the people that by a House of Commons just reformed, made more democratic, and put upon a broader franchise, it was done away with. Then there was the lesson taught by the establishment of municipal workshops in Paris in 1848. The experiment was initiated from the very best motives. It was declared to be the duty of the State to guarantee work to every citizen—in the language of the present day to provide work for the unemployed. The unemployed man who desired work had to furnish himself with a certificate of domicile from his landlord, get it stamped by the police, and present it at the office of the mayor of his ward, where it was exchanged for a ticket for work. Work in Paris was confined to residents in Paris, and the men received certain wages. Recourse was had to the simplest farms of manual labour, such as earth works, levelling, fetching and carrying tools, and so forth. The continual cry of the director as the brigade kept multiplying under his hands was "work, more work." Meanwhile the work that was done was costly, partly because many of the labourers were tradesmen unfit for the job, partly because many put no heart into their efforts, observing that anyhow some pay was secure. This was all wonderfully like the present day. He did not for a moment say that the state of London to-day was the same as that of Paris in 1848, but human nature was very much the same. And what were the results of that experiment in Paris? Private factories came rapidly to a standstill for lack of hands. Either the masters closed them in despair, or because the men deserted them, preferring the chance of public employment. Trade was consequently worse disorganised than before. and the distress increased. Provincials flocked up in thousands to share in the benefits of Paris. Lodgings, which in January had held about 8,000 or 10,000 persons, by the middle of April were crammed with 30,000. The rapidity with which the system grew was shown by the fact that on February 28th about 8,000 men were supposed to be out of work; on March 15th, 14,000 were brigaded for work; on March 20th, work was found for 12,000 men, and cost £2,000 a day; on April 1st, 40 000 men were brigaded; on April 16th 66,000 men were brigaded, and on June 20th the number had increased to 115,000, and a credit of 3,000,000 francs was voted by the Chambers. In four months the movement had grown to such an enormous extent that it had to be brought to an end. Had not that experiment a lesson for England? He did not wish to point the moral, as he did not believe the same final result would happen in London. But it was a serious thing to raise the hopes of tens of thousands of people, leading them to believe that they were going to get constant work. In Paris it led to that great Revolution in which 12,000 men were killed, and it was sad to think that our own Legislature, unmindful of all the experience of the past, should contemplate beginning such a scheme.

It might be said that he was meeting this Bill with a non possumus, but he did not wish to do that. All that had been said about a shortage of work was very important and everything seemed to turn on that. He thought they ought to first find out whether there really was a shortage of work. He trembled in this connection to mention the word "fiscal" because he knew that he would be raising a thorny subject at once, but surely it was desirable that they should look into the question to find out whether the present system tended to reduce employment. If our system tended to reduce employment in Heaven's name let them alter it, even if it upset same of their most cherished ideas, whether fiscal, social, trades union or philanthropic. It was highly desirable that they should inquire first of all carefully and impartially whether our trade was decreasing. If, as so many who did not approve of any fiscal inquiry said, our trade was not decreasing, what was the justification for this measure? Why should this Bill be passed if employment and our trade were not decreasing? Wages at present were higher and better and they might easily deal with this subject in another way. The real difficulty could only be met by the efforts of the people themselves, by thrift, self-reliance, temperance, and enterprise, and by those old-fashioned habits which had made this country what it-was to-day. He ventured to assert that no Government grants or municipal help, and not even robbing the rich—which had often been tried and had ended in greater loss to the poor—would be likely to benefit the country at the present time. Were they afraid to speak out and call things by their proper names? Was there a growing want of energy? was indolence becoming a reality on the part of the people? Charity, rates, and taxes could not support the people, however heavily applied, and could not save their trade and secure the people employment. The true remedy was to be found by the workers suiting themselves to the altered conditions which had arisen. This Bill would be a failure except in one respect. It could not supply profitable employment, but it would supply and encourage a want of independence and thrift on the part of the community. It would encourage fictitious employment for a time, and dam the rising tide till it burst out with all the greater and more formidable disaster.

He felt very strongly upon this subject, and he had only spoken at, he feared, too great length because he felt that the passing of this Bill would be a fatal step in the progress of the people, because it would create a new and most demoralising Poor Law. He appealed to hon. Members not to make this a Party question, because the poor would suffer in this matter more than anyone else. The Bill was a great experiment and a speculation, and the experience of the last twenty-two years was against taking such steps as were now proposed. If the measure was limited to London it would be a monstrous injustice, and if extended to the whole country it would outgrow all Government control. This Bill would establish anew Poor Law which would appeal simply to the weakness of the members of the community and not to their strength. As it grew it would degrade more and more, and in the words of a great authority he had already quoted— The degradation that way come from the distress due to want of work is as nothing compared with the enfeeblement that comes from the satisfaction of being dependent without loss of social respect. He therefore ventured with great, diffidence to urge the House to pause before passing this measure. Matters were not worse than they were previous to 1834. The revised Poor Law then established had done much to improve the country. It had saved tens of thousands of the poor from dependence, poverty, and pauperism. It had done this not by ministering to their weakness but to their strength. He had devoted many years endeavouring to make the people more self-reliant, and he believed that the only qualities which would make either a nation or an individual prosperous were self-dependence, independence temperance, and self-reliance. Let them maintain these qualities at all costs and at all hazards. This measure would enable men to more easily and pleasantly fall back into the wrong line, and for that reason he urged that the Bill should not be read a second time. He thought they should continue on the old lines, amended by the experience of the last eighty years, so as to make this country more dependent upon itself, and the aim of all laws should be to render every member of the community independent and self-supporting.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said he had the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend the Member for Islington. He had no sort of title personally to speak on this subject in the way which the hon. Member for Islington had spoken, for he was a high authority upon such subjects. He, nevertheless, seconded this Amendment with profound sincerity and the greatest earnestness, because after studying the history of this question he had been greatly impressed with the gravity of the step proposed by the Government in this Bill, which was a reversal of their present methods, and a step which might inflict incalculable mischief upon the community. This Bill laid down that in future the State should find employment for workmen who happened temporarily to be out of employment, and that was an entirely new departure. Why were they asked to take this step? He thought the Government had shown a certain amount of levity in the way they had introduced this Bill, for very little in-formation had been given to justify hon. Members in supporting it. He did not know why they were to assure that in future there would be a continuous and permanent class of unemployed deserving workmen. It was said that this Bill was not intended to give employment to the wastrel and the loafer, and the measure was based upon the assumption that there would be in the future a continuous lack of employment for deserving workmen all over the country. He thought that was a tremendous departure from what had been customary in the past. But was this assumption based on the truth? Was it a fact that there would be in the future this permanent and chronic lack of employment? If so, surely it was their duty to find out the real cause of this state of things. He did not think anyone would contend that the cause of this state of things was going to be removed by this Bill. In his opinion they should first ascertain what the real causes were and try to deal with them in some other way before they attempted to do something which in his judgment would tend to increase the evil which it was said that this Bill would remedy.

The right hon. Gentleman had tried to show that although the State had never accepted the principle of finding employment for deserving working men, in effect the principle hid been acted upon by borough councils and vestries in London. He wished to point out that what had been done by the borough councils and the vestries was something different to what was now proposed by this Bill. What was done in the cases cited was done to meet temporary and exceptional distress. The President of the Local Government Board had pointed out how very badly in some cases the powers possessed by the borough councils had been exercised.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that under this Bill the local authorities would have a permanent staff, and would act under regulations of the Local Government Board.

MR. WHITMORE

said that the mistakes which had arisen in this respect in he past had been due to the pressure which had been put upon local authorities, and no amount of admirable regulation would be able to prevent that pressure being exercised again in the future. As to the question of a central body, why should it really be more wise in administration of this kind than local bodies were? A kind of public pressure would be brought to bear which was undesirable. The whole truth of the matter was that it had not been proved hat there was any real necessity for new machinery being created to give employment to the unemployed. He asked the President of the Local Government Board this Question: Was he or the Government satisfied, if there was a new class of unemployed, that its creation had not been largely due to the laxer administration of the Poor Law in recent years, and also to the fact that the municipal boroughs of London and the municipal authorities of the country had been exercising these powers in the last twenty years to give employment to workmen? That had been the policy of almost all the borough councils. Workmen had been taught to believe that they would always get work when they wanted it. This Bill would help to perpetuate the very class of unemployed whom they were mainly thinking of dealing with. Much as he disliked opposing of any measure introduced by this Government, and particularly a measure which, as they all knew, was due to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who deserved so well of the public for his unselfish conduct during the past few months, he must, apart from all Party and personal feeling, consider what might be the consequences to the community of this fatal step they were now asked to take. He had heard it said that the borough councils had got power and had used it during the past twenty years and that they could not arrest this mischief at all. It seemed to him that they had entered unwarily on a dangerous course for some time, not knowing the direction in which they were going. But now that the issue had been plainly brought before the House as a legislative proposal it was their plain duty, as responsible men knowing something of the history of the country in the past, to say resolutely and deliberately that they would not go further on this dangerous course, and that they would not repeat the fatal error which their forefathers had made.

Amendment proposed— To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'it is most inexpedient for the national welfare, contrary to the best interests of the State, and especially detrimental to the poor themselves, by tending to reduce their self-reliance and independence, that a system of relief, whether supported by municipal rates or Imperial taxation, be established in addition to and outside the existing Poor Law.'"—(Sir George Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he took a different view from that expressed by the last speaker. He for one welcomed this Bill in principle. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was to be congratulated in the first place on his foresight in having created a Central Committee last year, and that he and his colleague, the President of the Local Government Board, were also to be congratulated on the courage they had shown in introducing this Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in opposition to the Bill would allow him to say that there was nothing whatever in the tone of their speeches of which any complaint could be made. He thought the same might be said of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and he trusted that the same remark would apply to all successive speeches. They all desired to attain the same object, though they did not see eye to eye. In regard to the way in which the question of the unemployed should be dealt with they might differ, but they all desired, if they could, to find some solution of the problem. The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment had seen many lions in the path. He (Mr. Buxton) did not deny that this proposal was not free from risks, but these were risks which the House of Commons ought to be prepared to take. He was prepared to support the Bill on this ground largely, that he saw now existing a greater and increasing danger a condition of things which certainly led to a great amount of suffering and a great deal of demoralisation. He thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was in one part the strongest argument in favour of this proposal. The hon. Gentleman made no real suggestion for a remedy, but he pointed out that pauperism was increasing, and that our Poor Law guardians had become demoralised. If that was so, let them at all events try to mitigate, if they could not remove, the evil. It was on that ground that he wished to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and also to do his best to support it in the Committee stage.

So far as he was concerned, he was more disposed to applaud the courage shown in its introduction than to find fault or criticise the Bill. It appeared to him, at all events, to go in the right direction, and if it met with general approval, he thought it would do much to promote the object they had in view. What they desired at this moment was some statutory machinery by which this question could be brought under proper administration. This was the only way in which discrimination between one class of labour and another could be properly carried out. He also supported the Bill on the ground that for the first time it faced facts and recognised that the question of the unemployed was a national one. Further it was an attempt to deal with this question in anticipation. Hitherto, they had always waited until the last moment and then hurriedly did something. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment wanted to know whether the distress would be chronic or only occur from time to time.

MR. WHITMORE

The assumption of the Bill is that it will be chronic.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was not speaking of the assumption of the Bill. His point was whether they should have permanent machinery for dealing with the unemployed. It could not be denied that there were from time to time, whatever the cause, occasions when the number of unemployed was so great that public opinion was roused, with the result, unfortunately, in many cases, that action was take in a panic and more harm than good was done in the matter. What he wanted to have was machinery ready and well oiled to deal with cases, whether chronic or arising in emergencies, so that it could be used at any time. Could anyone say that the present haphazard and spasmodic efforts of charity, of the Poor Law guardians and local authorities without any system of co-operation could really bring about the objects they had in view to relieve the genuine unemployed? Unfortunately, under the present system, it was the genuine unemployed who were very often elbowed out of any of the benefits to be derived from it. The experience of the last winter showed at all events that some method of dealing with the unemployed who were genuinely desirous of obtaining work was required. There was practically no machinery to deal with them, except the Poor Law itself. And everybody knew that the Poor Law existed not to prevent but to relieve destitution. It was neither a preventive nor restorative. In fact, when a man, through want of employment, had to apply for Poor Law relief, and came within the clutches of the Poor Law, tie unfortunately too often remained a destitute person for the rest of his life.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said a good deal about the expenditure on relief works and pointed out that they were always carried out at some extra cost. It was obvious that that would be so. It stood to reason that a man who had not been in regular employment for a considerable number of weeks or perhaps months, and who had been earning very small wages or perhaps no wages at all, must necessarily be inferior in physique to those who had been regularly engaged on such works. He would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Parliamentary Return issued the other day, containing the reports of the surveyors; who in several cases stated that the work done by the unemployed was satisfactory, and that as the men became better nourished they could perform their work as well as the ordinary labourers in the market. The Bill had been denounced by the hon. Member for North Islington as a new departure. He admitted that it was in a sense a new departure, because it recognised that the community owed an obligation in regard to this particular class of workmen, though he did not say that it went so far as to recognise the right of the unemployed to demand employment. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had practically disposed of the question of the principle of the measure, because he had pointed out that the borough councils and the municipal boroughs of the country had in the past expended very large sums on relief works. The expenditure last year in London alone amounted to over £100,000. Further they had the power, under the present conditions, not only of carrying out works themselves, but of contributing out of the rates to the funds of the central body in order to carry out public works. This Bill die not contain any power which was not enjoyed at present by the local authorities, but it gave a recognition by the House of Commons that something ought to be done in the direction indicated.

As regarded London, the Bill was indeed something of a new departure which, he believed, would not meet with any opposition from those hon. Members who were interested in London questions. It recognised that the poor of London of ought to be a common charge over the whole of London; and that London ought to be treated like every other town in the United Kingdom, as one area, with common interests and common burdens. That was a principle which, to his mind, ought to have been recognised long ago. Of course, there were certain risks connected with this experiment of dealing with the unemployed. But it was not such a leap in the dark as it might have been last year. They had the experience of the working of the Central Committee established by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and there was evidence that that experiment had been a success. The House ought to remember that the Central Committee were very much handicapped in the work they had to do. They were brought into existence very late in the autumn; and their funds were largely curtailed through the action of certain Borough Councils. But, in spite of all that, the enormous advantage had been shown of the co-operation between various persons and bodies in working out the problem, of the necessity of uniformity of action and discrimination between various classes of labour. It was quite certain that after the creation of that central body of voluntary associations the work could not stop there, but that the voluntary Central Committee should disappear and become a statutory body.

Only two alternative courses to the proposal of the Government in the Bill now before the House had been suggested. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment desired to fall back on the Poor Law of 1834. Now, everybody admitted that, on general principles, the Poor Law Act of 1834 was very valuable. But that was seventy years ago, and circumstances had altered since then in regard to the fluidity of labour and the commercial position. Therefore, he could not think that they could depend on the Poor Law of 1834 to solve existing difficulties. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman gave away his own case when he acknowledged that the great complaint at the present day was the laxity of the administration of the Poor Law. From experience in his own constituency, he had some sympathy with that criticism. But he could not quite blame the local authorities, because there were a large number of men for whom the Borough Council could not provide work, and they gave these men relief in the hope that the Central Committee would soon be able to find them employment, a hope, that was disappointed. He knew that if this Bill passed the local guardians would be relieved from the very onerous task now-put upon them. That local pressure on the local bodies was at present a very serious matter, and one of the advantages of the creation of a Central Committee would be that local pressure would be cased. The other alternative was that proposed by the Charity Organisation Society, of which Mr. Loch was secretary —a gentleman who had been so highly praised by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. Mr. Loch said that— The remedy lay in the improvement of industrial organisation and in a more careful use of salaries, wages, profits, and other resources on the part of employers and unemployed. When they asked for bread, Mr. Loch gave them a stone. That theory would not deal with the problem now before the House and country. If the Government proposal was not accepted, all those evils to which the hon. mover and seconder of the Amendment referred would arise again in the coming winter. They were told that this matter should not be dealt with hurriedly and in a state of panic. Bui it would again if there were no machinery. They were assured that a great deal of the evil of the present system arose from overlapping and competing charity. But if things remained as they were those evils would remain combined with the laxity of administration of the Poor Law guardians.

It was said that there was a very large amount of the expenditure of local bodies which was ineffective and extravagant; but that would necessarily recur if something in the nature of the proposals in the Bill were not adopted. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seemed to think that because he was going to throw out this Bill he was going to save the ratepayers £100,000 a year. The only result would be that a very much larger sum would be spent year by year for relief; and that much of that amount would be wasted and do more harm than good. All the evils which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think lurked in this Bill either existed already or were imaginary. The Bill would bring system, method, safeguards, and discrimination into the solution of this most difficult of all social problems. As to the general principle of the Bill, he believed that unless they had something in the nature of unification and co-operation of all the various organisations dealing with this matter of employment, the problem would become more difficult of solution with every advancing year; and that they would have every year a larger amount of public and private money practically wasted.

The hon. Gentleman had touched on some of the details of the Bill. As the Bill was drawn, it was only applicable compulsorily to London, and not applied compulsorily to other parts of the country. Now he gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he was ready to meet friendly Amendments in Committee to make the Bill applicable to large and even small boroughs, so as to make the appointment of central committees compulsory. For himself, he regarded that as an essential Amendment which ought to be made, and that the Bill should be made compulsory, not only in London, but in all industrial centres. In regard to the actual levying of the rate and to borrowing powers he was of opinion that these should, in London, lie with the London County Council and not with the central committee. The most difficult point of the whole Bill was in regard to the question of wages. As to wages, there were two points to be considered. In the first place, they should take care that the local authority or other body should not utilise the Act to reduce the average rate of wages in the locality or to get their work done below the ordinary cost at the expense of wages. On the other hand, they did not want to make work under the Act too attractive, or that men should, so to speak, be permanently employed or unemployed. The solution seemed to be to pay the recognised rate per hour, and either by working reduced hours, or in other ways, to make the work less attractive than work in ordinary day life. That was a solution with which he agreed. As regarded labour bureaux, they should be general throughout the country, and he should wish that the Local Government Board might be empowered to give them a grant, because it was essential that they should be under Government control, and be on a uniform basis He did not for a moment imagine that if the Bill were passed they would have a new heaven and a new earth. However, it was the duty of the House of Commons to attempt to deal with the unemployed question, although the present attempt would not be final.

MR. H. LAWSON

said he thought this was ore of those Bills in regard to which the House must be asked to distinguish between spirit and matter, principle and detail. The only principle that was at issue on the Second Reading was the erection throughout London, and he hoped also in every municipal borough and in every urban district in its vicinity, of machinery to deal with the relief of the unemployed on the lines of the Mansion House Committee of last year. Those who were most strongly in favour of voluntary charity co-ordinated with the Poor Laws, men like Mr. Charles Booth, said it was most important that machinery should be set up for the very purpose for which this Bill was introduced. There was no other principle involved. The real defence for this Bill was that they should rescue the question of the unemployed from the chaos in which it now lay. There was not in the whole of the Metropolis a single borough council that had not for several years paid large sums for work given out at the wrong season of the year to men who cadged for it, even at the houses of the members of the council. This money was expended without supervision, principle, or control. What he was pleading for was that some principle should be laid down and some order established. What was true of London was equally true of most of the municipal districts around London. It had been stated by an hon. friend that the sum expended last year amounted to £110,000. The House was not now asked to sanction the expenditure of a rate for the relief of the unemployed. That sanction had been given long ago, and had been approved by the House. It had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and all they were now asked to do was to substitute some unity of purpose and some measure of supervision where at present there were none.

The argument had been advanced that this provision had only been used to meet exceptional distress, though everyone who had studied the conditions of the unemployed knew that unemployment was chronic and perpetual, and it was perfectly certain that there would be much the Same average of unemployment every year. Therefore, when the borough councils year by year voted this money they had no doubt or scruple as to its expenditure. He thought the President of the Local Government Board said they must allow 30 per cent. for waste in using labour unfit for winter. He thought his right hon. friend under-estimated the wastage. He believed the waste was fully 50 per cent. Last year the London County Council gave out certain work on its parks and open spaces, and they took on any number of labourers. Money was expended for the purpose; and he thought 75 per cent. was wasted. The guardians did not control expenditure of money on relief works in any way; it was the borough councils; and they were perfectly aware that they were really paying a rate in aid just as if they were the authority under this Bill. Therefore, in accepting this machinery they were most likely to introduce economy and to do away with overlapping and waste. The system proposed was a necessity. Every country had its unemployed, and in our Colonies the problem was even more difficult than it was here. They could not get rid of it by laying down abstract formulas; they must deal with, facts as they were.

As a London Member, he took very serious objection to the position in which they would be left if the Bill passed as it now stood. London would be a sort of national doss-house. Therefore, in order to safeguard municipal interests, this machinery ought to be made general else there would be a far more lamentable march of the unemployed to London than that which recently took place. He hoped there would he another Amendment in respect of machinery. Whatever the House might think as to the necessity of getting some unity of control, it did not want another staff of officers, and therefore, so far as they were concerned, he trusted advantage would be taken of existing machinery, otherwise the whole of the halfpenny rate allowed would be paid in salaries to officers and in equipping new authorities who were not wanted. Great care would have to be taken to assure the public of this; otherwise he did not think they would be able to rely on public charity. Money would not flow into those newly-constituted bodies from benevolent persons unless they were sure that it went to the unemployed and not in salaries.

Another point was that under this Bill boroughs would be able to borrow money to establish farm colonies. That was the only purpose for which money could be borrowed, but it should be strictly limited and defined. Personally, he did not believe that farm colonies would be of the smallest use except as schools of preparation for a colonial life. It was no good to send an artisan or a clerk to a farm colony—the men who kept their heads above water during the summer and were then sent to a farm colony during the winter. The predecessor of the President of the Local Government Board obtained a Report as to the labour colonies in Holland. He read that Report; and all it proved was that they had got the same evils as existed among our own workers. There were men there who came year after year, the in-and-outs of the poorhouse. We did not want that system in this country. It was useless to raise a new class of unemployed who would go from county to county during the summer, and then be drafted off to a farm colony in winter. Such men would do a certain minimum of work, but would learn nothing. German experience proved the same. It should be remembered that as a rule a man was sent there at a time of the year when, unless he went there by way of training or sifting, he could learn very little of agricultural pursuits. That being so, he hoped these proposals in respect of farm colonies would be hedged about with the strictest of provisions. In fact, that was what this Bill required. If they were to set up machinery by statute, they must fence it in carefully, and if it was fenced in with sufficient care there was not much danger to the community involved.

In respect of residence, he understood that the President of the Local Government Board was willing to take precautions that relief should not be given to any except those who were genuinely located in the particular area, but why should he not adopt at once what was under the law of settlement termed the status of irremovability, that was to say, for one year? While venturing to make these remarks, he supported the Bill in principle, but they had got to guard against these armies of unemployed being attracted to London, where they would be a common danger and a common nuisance, and where there would be no adequate means of relieving them. Cobbet spoke of London as being a wen, which drew the life-blood of the people to it. They did not want London to become a wen drawing life-blood of a different kind With these precautions, he believed this measure might induce a certain amount of uniformity of practice and unity of purpose which were absent from the existing condition of things.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

reminded the House that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Islington gave utterance to similar fears and lamentations as those which had marked his speech that afternoon on the occasion of the introduction of the Free Education Bill some years before. He moved an Amendment then and would very likely have brought about the defeat of a Conservative Government had it not been that the Liberal Opposition came to the rescue. The House, therefore, need not be seriously alarmed by his predictions of evil on this occasion. He agreed with some of the hon. Baronet's remarks on the subject of temperance and thrift; but he did not think any Member should set himself up as a prophet on the point whether unemployment was likely to increase or decrease. All hoped that profitable employment would become more general, although it was no use ignoring the fact that the increase of machinery must inevitably tend to displace labour, and especially unskilled labour. Recently, he attended a great meeting of the unemployed in Leicester, nearly the whole of those men were unskilled workmen. Ninety-five per cent. of them were perfectly capable, and men who would try to keep employment if they had the opportunity. They were certainly not loafers, and lie did not approve of the march of the Leicester men to London, and he used what little influence he had in order to prevent it. He did not think that any good could come of it, and he did not see that any great benefit had resulted to them in consequence of it. However, the men themselves were worthy of every consideration and assistance which could be given them by a measure such as that before the House.

Anything he might have to say about this Bill was of a friendly character. He should support it although he would have to submit certain Amendments at the Bequest of the local authority of Leicester. His chief reason for supporting the Bill was that there were and always would be a large number of men out of employment, and they could not be allowed to starve. There were three alternatives, that of public charity by a system like that of the Charity Organisation Society; that of Poor Law relief, which was degrading and which was harmful to the country and the people who received it; or there was relief based on the principle of this measure, to assist men, to help to provide employment, profitable employment, which should be beneficial to the community. In so far as this Bill aimed at that end it was a good Bill and one which ought to be supported by the House. He hoped, therefore, it would receive a Second Reading that day, and that the Government would not be deterred by any seeming opposition from forcing it through Committee and passing it into law this year.

He now wished to make a few observations which had been suggested to him by the local authorities of Leicester and with which he quite agreed. The borough of Leicester had had a very large experience, extending over a number of years, in dealing with large bodies of unemployed, and in their judgment the central board set up by the Bill should, consist really of the members of the town council, and that the town council should call in the assistance of one or two guardians and have the power to co-opt other persons whom they might think desirable to serve on such board, for the reason that there could be no workman in Leicester who had resided in Leicester for a year or two but what some member of the town council could ascertain his merits in a few hours, and when anyone came to the board for employment, his character, history, and antecedents could be quickly and readily ascertained. He could then be dealt with much more easily and effectively on his merits by the town council than he could by a central board who would have to find their way about the question, and who would have, the great body of them, no particular training in these matters and would therefore not be so capable of dealing with them as members of the town council. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the constitution of such a body would be very much the same as was proposed under the Bill. The proposal of the Bill was that town councils and guardians should co-opt members.

MR. BROADHURST

pointed out that the body proposed by the Bill would work independently of the town council. That was the point of difference. Here would be an independent body, authorised to issue precepts on the town council for the levying of a rate; the town council as a body would be unable to refuse the precept, and would have practically no control over it. That was an important matter to a great industrial community. Then he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that ho would insert a clause requiring a year's residence to qualify for assistance.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I did not say I would insert a clause, but that it might be dealt with in the regulations.

MR. BROADHURST

said the local authority of Leicester were in favour of inserting a two years qualification in the Bill itself. It was far better that the main principles governing the scheme should be laid down by the Bill than by the regulations. They were also strongly of opinion that the machinery of the Bill should be made compulsory in all districts, and that county councils should have the same obligation to provide within their areas as rested upon boroughs to provide in theirs, the fear being that otherwise there would be a constant migration from county to borough districts of this class of workmen to secure themselves against want. Just as London Members were anxious to guard against the Metropolis becoming the national ''doss-house," so the provincial boroughs were anxious that their districts should not become county "doss-houses." Further, the orders of the Local Government Board, if they could not insist upon its being done, should at any rate appeal to all local authorities to co-operate in this matter. Co-operation meant less expenditure and greater efficiency. That was why borough councils were against the proposed independent central authority. Such a body would naturally appoint officials, want office accommodation, and set up another system of government within the municipal area, whereas if the municipality had the control and management, few, if any, additional officers would be necessary, and in most cases office accommodation would be found in the existing municipal buildings.

The Leicester local authorities were strongly in favour of making the charge under the Bill national and not local, as the work was one affecting the nation as a whole. Voluntary contributions in aid of rates were not to be expected if people had to pay a rate for the same purpose. The proposal was a reasonable one, and ho hoped it would receive favourable consideration. Some of the suggestions he had made would be put forward as Amendments in Committee; in any case, as much of the Bill as could be got would be welcomed, although he hoped the measure would be improved before it went to another place. The Government had shown some courage in introducing such a measure, it showed that the nation, was recognising more and more its obligations to the less fortunate members of the community, who suffered so much from displacement by machinery and other causes, and he hoped the Bill would be passed into law before the session ended.

MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

said he could not agree with the hon. Member for Mile End when he said that this was not a Bill which introduced a new principle. He did not agree with the statement that this measure merely systematised existing powers so that they might be exercised in a more efficient manner. If that had been the only effect of this Bill there would have been no opposition to it. At the present time assistance could only be given to the unemployed either by the guardians or by the local authorities. As far as the guardians were concerned, they had no power to find employment or to grant assistance except the person who applied was destitute, and so far as employment was concerned they had no discretion whatever. Therefore they might put on one side any notion that the guardians had any power which was proposed to be given under this Bill. Local authorities at the present time had no statutory power or right whatever to find employment for men out of employment. [An HON. MEMBER: But they do it now.] Yes, but they only did it by increasing the number of their employees during times of distress, and they could only give people employment in connection with the public works which they had to carry out, and they had no right to employ men except under the ordinary industrial conditions.

He did not think there was any doubt whatever that this Bill introduced for the first time an extremely important principle which would have most wide and far-reaching consequences. Whether this Bill would tend to demoralise the working class or whether it would improve their moral and social condition was certainly a matter for argument. He hoped that hon. Members would not be deluded by what the President of the Local Government Board had put forward, viz., that this Bill did not introduce a new principle but simply systematised powers which local authorities already possessed under the direction of the Local Government Board. He joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He wished to argue the point whether the conditions ought to be altered in the extremely important particulars proposed under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the failure of the existing local authorities to it deal with this question, and he assumed that by constituting new authorities less adapted to deal with these matters and with less knowledge, they would be able to create a new heaven and earth and get rid of all the failures of the past. Could anything be more absurd? The Poor Law Commissioners had declared that there was scarcely a statute connected with the administration of the Poor Law which had produced the effect intended by the legislation, but, on the contrary, they had created more evils and aggravated those which they were intended to relieve. The right hon. Gentleman had ridiculed the way in which the local authorities had conducted their administration, and then, instead of moving the rejection of this Bill, he went on to say that this measure introduced the Local Government Board and two new authorities who knew less about the subject than any existing authority, and in this way they were told that a new era would arise. Under this Bill not only were they not likely to achieve the result the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, but they would be far more likely to emphasise those deeply-seated social evils which were connected with want of employment in this country, and it was upon that topic that he wished to say why he opposed this Bill.

The borough council of the district which he represented were of opinion that the whole principle of this measure was to create a class of paupers who would be free from the stigma of pauperism, and they believed that the measure would undermine the self-reliance of the working classes. Personally, he had had a large experience in Poor Law matters, and he could hardly conceive a Bill which would do more harm in its ultimate effect to the working classes. They had been told that this was merely a measure to enable them to make the best of the machinery now in existence, and in this way they were told that in future everything would be done for the benefit of the working classes. He thought they ought to emphasise the duties of the working classes as well as their rights. He was opposed to all those class measures of which this was a bad illustration, which were constantly telling the working classes of the country that they had rights apart from duties, and that those who were out of employment were entitled to live upon those who were working. They were telling the thriftless that they had a right to live at the expense of the thrifty and industrious, who in many cases were not better off than themselves. Take, for instance, the underlying principle of this Bill. It could not be denied that if this Bill was passed, Parliament would recognise for the first time what might be called the right of employment in all the working classes of this country, and in saying this he did not wish to use the term "working classes" in any special sense. That was a fallacy, because no such right existed. There was no right to claim against the community in cases of want of employment. But he went beyond that. They could not imagine that they had got an organisation called "society" with infinite funds which might be squandered, and which would always be sufficient for providing employment for those who were out of work, or for keeping those who would not work. There was no such right. No man who would not work had a right to live at the expense of those who did.

What was it they found in this Bill? Rival Poor Law authorities were to be created, and he asked the House to consider what that meant. There were now the guardians, the borough councils, and the county councils, and if there was one matter which really required reorganisation and amendment in regard to our local government system, it was that the present system should be simplified instead of having new boards added to those which we already had. What was proposed by this Bill was not one new authority but two. There was the local authority, and what was called the central authority. He would ask anyone with experience in local administration whether this would not create a greater evil by causing more extravagance for clerks, servants, and officials, thereby increasing the burden on the over-rated districts in order to relieve a few unemployed workmen in the course of the year? The officialism alone of this Bill would constitute an expense to the country entirely out of proportion to the duties which would be cast on the new authorities. He had a further strong objection to the measure. These new authorities were to take certain cases away from the Poor Law authorities. In other words, they were going to have competition between the authorities in regard to the particular form of relief to be given. Could anything be worse than that?

MR. BROADHURST

The hon. and learned Member seems to think that I am in favour of the creation of new authorities.

MR. CRIPPS

said he was dealing with the Bill as it stood. The creation of a new authority was quite a different matter from the giving of additional powers to existing local authorities. It seemed to him that an essential portion of the Bill was the creation in every district of a local authority which would have either nothing to do because the number of unemployed would be very small, or else be overwhelmed because of the demoralising tendencies which were to be introduced.

They were always speaking in this House in the abstract of economy. So long ago as 1883 the then President of the Local Government Board said that the pressure of the rates was so great that they were bringing down working men to the condition of paupers, and pressing so hardly on small manufacturers that they were no longer able to hold their own. Since 1883 the burden had greatly increased, and he protested in the strongest possible manner against a Bill of this sort which would put an additional burden on the ratepayers, who had never been consulted and know nothing at all about the Bill. Once set this Bill agoing, and it would not be a½d. or a 1d., but 6d., 1s., or 1s. 6d. which would be required. Although there was a great deal to be said against making this a national charge, that would certainly be preferable to making it a local charge. The Commission which inquired into the incidence of local taxation pointed out that the Poor Law expenditure under existing conditions had now become in the nature of a national charge. If the House was going to create a new principle of this kind it ought to find the money, and not shirk its responsibility by putting the burden on the over-burdened ratepayers in the various districts. A penny per £ on the local rates only produced £800,000, but a 1d. on the income-tax produced £2,500,000. Therefore, in putting a charge of this kind on the local ratepayers they were relieving two-thirds of the wealth of the country of a charge which it ought to bear if it was to be made at all.

There was one other matter of real importance as regarded the demoralising tendency of the Bill. He insisted that the Bill as introduced would increase the tendency in the worst possible manner of the rural population to drift into the towns. What was wanted was some reform which would keep the labouring classes in the country districts. No one was a keener agitator for that than he was, because he believed that this drift of the rural population to the towns was one of the crying evils of the day, and must affect the whole future of the people of this country. By this Bill London was to be made the dumping ground for all the waifs and strays of the country; and if the system was to be extended to the county boroughs, it would be impossible to conceive a more demoralising scheme as regarded the country districts. What was the remedy? The remedy which he, and those who thought with him, proposed, was so to improve their industrial organisation that they could keep their people fairly provided with employment in the country districts. Instead of that the Government invented this claptrap remedy which, so far from really dealing with the evil, tended to increase the demoralisation and overcrowding in the great towns. Ha would like anyone to travel through the country districts in this land, and through the country districts in France, and see what a difference there was between the two. The moral to be deduced was that this Bill was a long step in the direction of pauperism. For his own part, there was nothing so sad as to see any man wishing to obtain employment and not able to get it; but were they likely to decrease the number of those unfortunates by the proposals in the present Bill? He had come to the conclusion that the tendency of these proposals would be rather to increase them. The Bill was a claptrap palliative. No graver matter could be brought before the House, and he thought it his absolute duty to oppose to the utmost this demoralising Bill which the Government had introduced.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said that one phrase which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was significant of the opposition with which this modest measure was to be met by some of its opponents. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the Bill as a claptrap palliative, and showed in how small a way it touched the difficulties of the situation, and that, therefore, it did not deserve the approbation of the House. If he might be allowed, without offence, he should like to express his personal satisfaction that a Government had at length arisen which was prepared to make the unemployed question a matter of serious discussion in the House. It afforded him and his colleagues of the Labour Party considerable satisfaction to find that such was the case. After listening to the cheers from the opposite side of the House which greeted the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington, he admitted that it said a great deal for the courage of the President of the Local Government Board that he had brought this measure to its Second Reading. [Ironical cheers.] He wished to give credit where credit was due. He would like also to express what he knew was a very general feeling outside that House amongst those who were trying to find some helpful solution of this difficulty—a very strong and high sense of appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chief Secretary for Ireland, in having, practically on his own initiative, launched a scheme upon London which this Bill was about to legalise and establish, he hoped, all over the country. The arguments against the Bill had been more entertaining than convincing. When listening to the hon. Member for North Islington resurrecting bygone methods of dealing with labour problems, he was reminded of Old Mortality re cutting the inscriptions on the tombstones of dead and gone political systems. He thought none the worse of the hon. Member for having the courage of his convictions; but he hoped that on this occasion there would be a sound of weeping in the division lobbies.

It had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that this Bill introduced a new principle, viz., that it conferred power on local authorities to find employment for the unemployed and to pay them wages. The hon. and learned Member emphasised the point and declared that the local boards of guardians at the present time had no power to authorise the spending of a single penny of the rates for that purpose. With all respect to the learning of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he submitted that he was wrong. He was sure that the President of the Local Government Board would agree with him that at the present time boards of guardians could, with the consent of the Local Government Board, acquire land for the express purpose of setting the unemployed to work and pay them wages. These powers had existed in England since the days of Elizabeth. He held that the Poor Law of England was originally intended not to provide relief for the destitute. That was done by the Church as part of its duties. The Poor Law was established to create a new authority, as was now being done by this Bill, and to confer on that authority power to acquire land, to erect workshops, to set the able-bodied to work, and to pay them wages. Those powers had never been repealed and were still capable of being put into force. Therefore, it was a mistake to say that this Bill established a new principle. In providing work by law for the workless they were telling the thriftless that they must work if they wanted to live, and not, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division said, tell them they might live on their fellows. As for the men who would not work, he entirely agreed with St. Paul's doctrine, and if it could be applied to the Park Lane end of London there would not be so much need for applying it to the East End.

So far from the Bill acting as a magnet to draw the people from the country to the large centres of population, he believed it would operate in a contrary direction and open up avenues whereby the workless man in the city could find his way back to the country. Were it otherwise he would most strenuously oppose the measure. The whole trouble was that the country was being drained to the centres of population. He agreed with the Member for North Islington that clerks had a bard struggle to live. But that was because they were not paid a reasonable wage. To sweat clerks and then to protest against anything being done to help them was not the way to encourage these men to rely upon self-help. One statement of the President of the Local Government Board which was cheered on the Opposition side was that the Bill was not intended to apply to loafers and wasters. It was meant for the honest respectable man who could not find employment. At one time he feared that an attempt was being made to deal with the tramp and the loafer. If that had been done it would still leave the root of the evil untouched. It was because the Bill aimed at a genuine development, arid strove to prevent decent fellows from being driven into the gutter that it was worth support from all quarters of the House.

Respecting the present system of emigration it was a scandal that England had no better use for her sons than to banish them across the sea to grow food to send home to help the people in this country. He attended a Mansion House meeting the other day, and an Archbishop or a Bishop made a speech which clearly implied that Divine Providence did not understand His business, that in other parts of the world was waste land, which by the blessing of God belonged to England, and that idle men should be sent to idle land. Those who were born in England should not be called upon to leave so long as one rood of it lay waste and untilled. He hoped that one of the results of this Bill would be an ultimate enlargement of its scope whereby men who had been taken from the towns would be settled permanently upon the land, and grow food for the people of England from English soil. Some years ago the Poplar Board of Guardians accepted the offer of a farm in Essex in order to try the experiment of getting people back to the land. Able-bodied paupers were to be sent down to the farm to work there at no wages and to be treated as if they were in the workhouse so far as any yield from their labour was concerned. Yet during the time that farm colony had been in operation 400 men had been drafted down from the Poplar district, and out of that number only seven had proved to be people who would not work. A large proportion of them had been reclaimed, and had found employment, while a large batch had been sent across to Canada as desirable emigrants. If that could be done with material in the workhouse, already degraded and demoralised, what might not be done with those men who were taken in hand before they were pauperised and demoralised and given this opportunity? In the report of the Central Committee of the Unemployed Fund there was some very interesting information of another colony at Hollesley Bay, controlled by that committee. In that case hundreds of men were sent down to do drainage and road work, to reclaim heath land, to construct sea walls, to make bricks, and to make tables and chairs and other articles, and to do painting. The cost was 20s. 6d., for every family relieved. As soon as a man was sent down to the colony his wife received 10s. a week, with 2s. for the first child, 1s. 6d. for the second, and 1s. for each remaining child. The average allowance to each wife was 14s. 6d., and the cost of the food of the man was 6s., against which there was a full week's work given by the man. The relief of these men, therefore, by finding them work cost nothing. They could earn their own cost, and possibly leave a surplus to assist in carrying on the colonies.

He trusted that no one would vote against the Bill because of any danger of making the nation bankrupt. There was no reason, however, why grants should not be made from the national Exchequer if the system did not pay expenses. Unemployment was national in scope, and should really be a a national charge. He resented the statement that all the evils that fell upon the workmen were the outcome of improvidence. If they were all teetotalers to-morrow, and embodied all the virtues and elements of thrift, the unemployed question would still be present.

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.