HC Deb 15 April 1907 vol 172 cc687-97

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that as one who had been Deputy-Chairman of the London County Council he deeply regretted to oppose it. He naturally felt regret because of the changed character of the London County Council, and its new political complexion. It might be asked what his reasons were for opposing the Bill. He noticed a statement in The Times a few days ago stating that Mr. Boland had been notified by the London County Council of their intention to withdraw from the Bill the clause to which Roman Catholic Members took exception, empowering the police to visit Roman Catholic institutions where lodgings were provided for the poor and destitute, and that the Nationalists would not persist in their opposition when the measure came before the House of Commons for Second Reading. Such an announcement was full of interest at the present time. It threw a good deal of light upon the claims the Roman Catholic Church were now making upon the London County Council. It recalled Lord Beaconsfield's famous saying— I know your Church—you plead for tolerance, but you ask for supremacy. The clause to which reference was made was Clause 85 which ran as follows— No premises within the county shall be deemed to be exempt from the provisions of the Common Lodging Houses Act, 1851 and 1853, as amended by the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1902, or part 9 referring to the Common Lodging Houses of the last-mentioned Act or by any Act amending the said Act in which persons are harboured or lodged not for hire for a period not exceeding a week at a time. He did not wish to say one word against the good work that was done by members of the Roman Catholic Church among the poor outcasts of London. There were many good and earnest men engaged in such work, but he could not help asking why this secrecy was wanted on the part of the Roman Catholics. If there was nothing to conceal, why endeavour to conceal it? The Bill dealt with a very large number of issues, and he thought the House was entitled to a full declaration and explanation in order to make clear what these mysterious arrangements between the County Council and the Roman Catholics really meant. He had worked hard for many years for the party who now governed the County Council, and no one rejoiced more than he at the victory of the Moderate Party, but he could imagine no means better calculated to make the people out of touch with the London County Council than any surrender such as this to a Church, which claimed to dictate to the London County Council, and more often to the people of England as a whole. Where it was based on a claim for tolerance and equality of treatment, they were prepared to grant it, but he thought it was an episode in the history of the County Council that required explanation. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

seconded the Motion, but said he opposed the Bill on broader grounds than the hon. Member for West Down because it seemed to him on looking through the Bill that if it had been necessary to have Clause 85 inserted, there should be some reasonable explanation of why it was being dropped. He could not see why the words referring to the various statutes dealing with common lodging-houses should not be retained in Section 85 as originally set out in the Bill. He agreed that nearly all the safeguards laid down were safeguards which ought to be made applicable to the Bill before the House. If hon. Members would look at the sections of the old Act as regarded common lodging-houses and the precautions to be taken he thought that not one of them would say that any hardship would be inflicted if this provision were retained. Therefore some explanation should be forthcoming as to why the most valuable terms of the old Act were not to be made applicable to this Bill. It was a matter of the greatest importance, and ought to be cleared up. At present it looked as if there was something more than appeared on the surface.

Amendment proposed— To leave on the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. L. T. Corbett.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

thought that on this occasion his hon. friend the Member for North Down had tumbled upon a nidus eqninus or mare's nest, and he could assure him that his suspicion that those who were responsible for the omission of this clause showed any trace of sectarianism was without any foundation whatever. They had left out this clause because there was a very widespread and general opposition to it, not from one Roman Catholic society, but from a large number of Church of England societies. He thought he was right in saying that six societies petitioned against the clause, and only one was Roman Catholic, the rest being Church of England bodies. Those responsible for the Church of England Homes for Waifs and Strays protested against Clause 85. They did not object to the homes being inspected by the Local Government Board or the Home Office, but it was submitted that they should not be inspected by the County Council except for purposes of sanitation and the provision for escape from fire. They were at present inspected for those two purposes by the London County Council. If this clause was retained a good deal of pecuniary liability would be inflicted upon these charitable societies, who did an immense amount of good work in giving shelter at night to poor people who had no place of their own to go to. The County Council felt that at the present moment they did not wish to rush into hasty legislation which might inflict a deadly blow on these societies, Church of England and Roman Catholic a like, which had done so much to help the poor in the past; they desired to to wait until the whole bearing of the question had been considered. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Council now in power had not had time to consider and decide on this complicated Bill, and the House ought to realise that it was not for any sectarian motive that they now asked that the consideration of this clause should be postponed, but for the reason he had given and that reason alone.

*MR. CLELAND (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

said he found himself in the curious situation, as an old member of the County Council, of asking the House to pass this Bill, whilst the hon. Gentleman who was a member of the party now in power on the County Council was heading an attack on the General Powers Bill as modified by the present Parliamentary Committee of Chat body. The Bill now before the House was not the Bill it pretended to be. The new County Council had seen fit to omit a number of its provisions, but he would not ask the House to refuse a Second Reading because some provisions with which he was in perfect agreement were dropped. He regretted that Clauses 32 to 51 (excepting Clause 38) had been dropped, and he regretted that Clause 84 had been deleted; with regard to Clause 85 the action of the County Council was perfectly reasonable. Clause 85 practically altered the law of the land in a way that was bound to give considerable offence to many people who held strict views in regard to benevolent institutions. It was surely undesirable to alter the law of the land in favour of a municipal authority in a matter which excited such a strong feeling in the minds of many people in this country, and that was why he considered the authorities at Spring Gardens were perfectly right in not pressing the subject. Some of the clauses in the Bill, however, were absolutely necessary for the improvement of London. They were clauses relating more or less to matters of internal economy. One was to amend the superannuation fund, to make it easier for the County Council to hand over to the relatives of those who died the money due to them under the superannuation scheme. The whole of the Bill, with the exception of Clause 85, was practically non-controversial, and therefore he asked the House to give it a Second Reading.

*SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)

desired to emphasise the fact that this was not a Roman Catholic question at all, but a question which affected all charitable institutions, who were much grieved at the way they were to be treated under the clauses that were now dropped. He was able to speak with authority as a member of the committee of the Refuge and Reformatory Union, whose record of service in rescue and educational work all over the country extended over fifty years. On their behalf he heartily supported the proposal that additional time should be given to consider this question. It was one that should be dealt with in some way, but not in the way proposed in Clause 85, which had now been dropped.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said he would be the very last person to wish to subject any philanthropic institution to the inspection of the County Council, but he wished to say on the general principle that the Bill as printed was not the Bill that the House was asked to consider. The hon. Member who moved its Second Reading admitted that. He would not say in what way it was altered although he admitted that Clause 85 was withdrawn. So far as he could gather there was some arrangement in regard to other clauses. He did not object to those arrangements nor had he any objection to the Bill being modified in any way its promoters desired, but he did object to being asked to vote for a Bill blindfold.

*MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

, as one whose name was on the back of the Bill, desired to say that he cordially associated himself with what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division of Devon. Part 5 of the Bill was left out, and it had been decided to leave out Part 6 together with Clauses 84 and 85. While efficient inspection of some kind was necessary, he thought it was wise on this occasion to avoid, if possible, hurting the feelings of those who did excellent work in connection with charitable institutions. It was not the feelings of only one section of the Christian community that had been hurt but of many sections, including the Church of England. He therefore associated himself with those who desired to drop Clause 85.

*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said he desired to associate himself most heartily with those who supported the decision to withdraw Clauses 84 and 85, but he really rose for the purpose of asking the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for a class of persons whose interests appeared to have been overlooked in Clause 64 which dealt with superannuation. Under the London School Board there was connected with the teachers a superannuation fund to which they contributed. When the London County Council took over the work of the School Board the superannuation fund was still continued, but it was not allowed that new teachers should become members of the old superannuation fund. The result had been that the remaining members of the original fund naturally found that they were becoming older every year and were becoming an increasing burden on the shrinking fund. If the County Council allowed the members of the original fund to come in under their scheme, and provision might be made under Section 64 to enable that to be done, then what appeared to be a very grave wrong would be removed. Under the present arrangement, unless those who died off were allowed to be replaced by those who were coming on — the now teachers —necessarily the original funds must be entirely cleared out, and those who were not allowed to come in under Clause 64, but only allowed to appeal to the previous existing fund, now being ruined, ran the risk of losing the benefit which they ought to have obtained from continuous contributions spread over a considerable number of years. If this subject might have the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board, he was sure that a suggestion to the London County Council would be all that was required, and the chance of this grave wrong being continued would, he thought, at once pass away.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

said Clauses 84 and 85 no doubt had been put in the Bill by the County Council to meet an existing grievance, and apparently it was not a question of whether the Clause was right or wrong, but one of expediency. He did not know whether they were acting out of sympathy with regard to these charitable institutions, some of them Roman Catholic, in reference to which appeals were coming from all sides at present. The question was whether it was a just thing from the point of view of the inmates of these institutions to exclude these clauses. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that other clauses were to be deleted. He understood that they were going to pass the Bill as a whole. If the Bill got the Second Reading that night it would be road with the clauses in it, and the deleting of Clauses 84 and 85, with others, would take place in Committee. He would like to know whether the deleting of the clauses was for the purpose of making the Bill more suitable for its objects, or whether it was intended for the gratification of Members of the Opposition. If every Member of the House could negotiate with the County Council in regard to Bills which they promoted and say, "If you do not take out such and such a clause we will oppose it," then they would not know where they stood. He was sure that the Local Government Board would not allow that course to be followed, or if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that Department did so his opinion with regard to him would be very much changed. When the right hon. Gentleman was on that side of the House, he noticed that one of the things he very often protested against was interference with the rights of the County Council. It was for the London County Council to satisfy the House that there was a further reason for deleting these clauses than the gratification of the hon. Member for Kerry or the satisfaction of the Nationalist Party. If they proved that the inmates of those places were going to be better cared for without supervision and inspection, he thought the House might accept that assurance. It was not fair to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading with certain clauses in it, and that the Bill should then go to Committee where those clauses would be deleted, so that the measure which came from Committee would not be that to which they had given a Second Reading. He asked the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the matter, and not to consent to it because of a threatened opposition from any part of the House.

LORD R. CECIL

said he had been informed by the promoters of the Bill what line they desired to take about it. On every private Bill it was essential that the promoters should negotiate with opponents where they thought those opponents were justified in their opposition. They must be ready, of course, in Committee, to frame the Bill in such a way as on the whole would meet the objects they had in view. They had to consider the Bill as a whole, and they had told certain opponents they intended to strike out this particular clause and other clauses to meet the objections that had been made. Of course, this clause had nothing to do with Roman Catholics especially; the Church of England and Nonconformists desired the exclusion of the clause, but not because they objected to inspection at all. They had no objection to inspection, but they objected to the form of inspection proposed. They thought it was not the right form of inspection to treat these refuges as if they were common lodging-houses, and that to ask a certain kind of inspector to inspect these refuges as lodging-houses would lead to injustice and render the work exceedingly difficult to carry out, while it would cast an unnecessary slur upon the institutions concerned.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

Are they willing to accept any kind of inspection whatever?

LORD R. CECIL

said he was not in a position to speak for them all. He understood that in the case of those with which he had made himself acquainted, they were perfectly willing to have a suitable form of inspection. The County Council had this opposition to deal with, and having a very complicated measure to prepare in a very short time, they had come to the conclusion that it would be better to drop the clause, at any rate for the present, in order that the matter might be reconsidered and dealt with in the future in a more satisfactory way. It was only right to say that the County Council had shown themselves very zealous and hard-working in dealing with this Bill, discussing all its clauses and informing themselves thoroughly, as they had done, as to the provisions of the measure.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes, 203; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 117.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Parker, James (Halifax)
Acland, Francis Dyke Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Partington, Oswald
Adkins, W, Ryland D. Hall, Frederick Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Halpin, J. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Ambrose, Robert Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Asbury, John Meir Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Harrington, Timothy Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hart-Davies, T. Pirie, Duncan V.
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Helme, Norval Watson. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Barker, John Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Barnard, E. B. Hodge, John Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Barnes, G. N. Hogan, Michael Radford, G. H.
Beale, W. P. Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N, Rainy, A. Rolland
Beck, A. Cecil Horniman, Emslie John Raphael, Herbert H.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Horridge, Thomas Gardner Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bennett, E. N. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Berridge, T. H. D. Jackson, R. S. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd Jenkins, J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Johnson. W. (Nuneaton) Redmond, William (Clare)
Billson, Alfred Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Boland, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rickett, J. Compton
Boyle, Sir Edward Joyce, Michael Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brace, William Kekewich, Sir George Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Brodie, H. C. Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Robinson, S.
Bryce, J. Annan Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Runciman, Walter
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Lamont, Norman Salter, Arthur Clavell
Burke, E. Haviland- Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Bernyeat, W. J. D. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Levy, Maurice Sears, J. E.
Byles, William Pollard Lewis, John Herbert Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Cameron, Robert Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Carlile, E. Hildred Lowe, Sir Francis William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cave, George Lundon, W. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Snowden, P.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Spicer, Sir Albert
Clarke, C. Goddard Maclean, Donald Stanger, H. Y.
Clynes, J. R. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Steadman, W. C.
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm McVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W M'Callum, John M. Summerbell, T.
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Crae, George Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Crean, Eugene M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Crossley, William J. M'Killop, W. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) M'Micking, Major G. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Maddison, Frederick Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Delany, William Magnus, Sir Philip Torrance, Sir A. M.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Massie, J. Toulmin, George
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Meagher, Michael Verney, F. W.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Menzies, Walter Vivian, Henry
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Molteno, Percy Alport Walker, H. De P. (Leicester)
Esslemont, George Birnie Mooney, J. J. Walsh, Stephen
Eve, Harry Trelawney Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Everett, R. Lacey Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ferens, T. R. Napier, T. B. Waterlow, D. S.
Ffrench, Peter Nield, Herbert White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Findlay, Alexander Nolan, Joseph White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Forster, Henry William Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Fullerton, Hugh O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N) Whitely, John Henry (Halifax)
Gilhooly, James O'Doherty, Philip Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Glover, Thomas O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Wiles, Thomas
Greenwood, Hamar (York) O'Malley, William Wilkie, Alexander
Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Wilson, P. W. (St. Paneras, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) Wood, T. M'Kinnon Ashley and Mr. Cleland.
Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) Yoxall, James Henry
NOES.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Fell, Arthur Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Renton, Major Leslie
Bellairs, Carlyon Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.) Ridsdale, E. A.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Black, Arthur W. Griffith, Ellis J. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Haddock, George R. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Clough, William Hazel, Dr. A. E. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hedges, A. Paget Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd Hemmerde, Edward George Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Courthope, G. Loyd Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Higham, John Sharp Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cross,' Alexander Houston, Robert Paterson Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hyde, Clarendon Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Mallet, Charles E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) T. L. Corbett and Mr. Sloan.
Erskine, David C. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Essex, R. W. Marnham, F. J.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.