Sitting of 9 May 1894

PRVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS BILL (by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill amended, be now considered."
    MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)moved, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Expense of lighting common staircases)." He said, he did not like to take this course of moving that the Bill be referred hack, but it was the only way of dealing with the matter. The Bill, as amended in Committee, proposed to make some changes in the powers of the London County Council with regard to workmen's dwellings or dwellings in blocks. That body had come to the conclusion that it was desirable that the common staircases should be lighted in such buildings at night until sunrise, and they had introduced a clause to that effect into the Bill. The evidence upon that subject had no doubt been considered by the Committee upstairs, and had that been all he should not have thought it his duty to intervene in the matter. But the Local Authorities had been consulted, and grounds had been made out for interference. The Bill, as it had come down to the House from the Committee, was now changed, and instead of throwing the responsibility for lighting the staircases of these private dwellings upon the owners, it proposed that half the cost of such lighting should be defrayed by the Local Authorities out of the rates. He maintained that this was altogether a new thing as applied in this country. He knew nothing, of course, of what had taken place upstairs, but he believed the only precedents brought before the Committee wore the cases of Edinburgh and Glasgow. He was unaware to what extent the Com-
    694
    mittee considered there was a precise similarity of circumstances; he could only say from his own knowledge of those cities, the "wynds," as they were called, were common highways, and there might be a necessity for lighting them in both those towns where they led to blocks of dwellings. It was unnecessary, however, to go into the question as regarded Glasgow and Edinburgh. His objection was to throwing the responsibility of lighting the staircases of blocks of dwellings belonging to private owners upon the ratepayers. This proposal was really "the thin end of the wedge," so often referred to in that House, and he could not exactly see where it was going to land them. The House should be exceedingly jealous of any proposal to extend taxation and rating in this country. The power of taxation conferred by Parliament upon Local Authorities had already grown to an enormous extent; and the House ought, in the interests of the taxpayers, to take every care to prevent any undue extension of the principle of taxation by Private Bill Legislation, and to keep it within very strict bounds indeed. He had no wish to taboo the matter, and had taken this course as the simplest way of calling attention to the matter. He had no objection to the Bill, nor any wish to interfere with it passing. Probably the London County Council had taken good care of such parts of the Bill as required to be brought before the House. If the House should not see fit to refer it back to the Committee, in order that they might reconsider the whole thing, he should certainly feel called upon to move that, two of the amended clauses be struck out. For the present, he simply moved that the Bill be referred back, that evidence from the Local Authorities might be taken. Various Local Authorities would be affected by this clause in many different parts of London. Some, of course, would not be affected at all, but in his own constituency there were a great number of these blocks of private dwellings; also on the south side of the river, in Chelsea, and in St. Luke's, and they would probably be greatly extended in various parts of the Metropolis. When an attempt was being made to throw part of the cost of lighting the staircases to them, which should be borne by the owners, whether private individuals or public companies, so dangerous

    695
    a precedent should be resisted. Whatever was required to be done to make these staircases decent and respectable at night should be done at the expense of the owners.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "as amended, be now considered," in order to add the words,
    "Re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Lighting common staircases, &c.)"—(Mr. Howell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'as amended, be now considered,' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CODDINGTONsaid, that when this clause was before the Committee upstairs it was most carefully considered. Many alterations were made in it, the original proposal having been that the whole expenses of lighting these common staircases should be thrown on the property owners. The Committee, of which he was Chairman, took the view, however, that if it were desired that these staircases should be lighted, they would be lighted for the public convenience, and that it seemed manifestly unfair, therefore, to impose upon the owners the entire cost of lighting. The evidence showed that an enormous number of people lived in industrial dwellings, and it was clear that the occupants would be injured if the owners were called upon to bear the whole cost of lighting. A compromise was therefore arrived at, by which one-half the cost was imposed upon the owners and one-half upon the Vestries, powers being given to the Vestries to say whether the staircases should be lighted or not. The evidence given before the Committee showed that in some instances the street lamps were so situated as to sufficiently light the staircases, and that was why it was left to the Local Authority to say whether or not special lights should be provided. Had the hon. Member for Bethnal Creen been in the Committee Room he would have seen what anxiety was displayed by the Committee in regard to this matter, and he would not have adopted the course he had taken that day.
    SIR L. LYELL, as a Member of the Committee, said, he and his Colleagues were quite unanimous in the decision they came to upon that clause. These common staircases were practically part of the street.
    696
    It was desirable that they should be adequately lighted—as a fact, they were lighted up for a portion of the evening, and it was held to be necessary on police grounds that the lighting should be continued throughout the night in the same way as streets wore lighted. Inasmuch as the Local Authorities were to have the power of insisting on this extended lighting, it was felt to be only fair to the property owners, who did not deem it necessary, in the interests of the occupiers, to keep the gas alight for so many hours, that the whole of the increased expense should not fall upon them. The decision that the Local Authority should pay half the cost of lighting the staircases was, under the circumstances, a very fair one, and he therefore joined the hon. Member for Blackburn, the Chairman of the Committee, in resisting the Motion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green.
    COLONEL LOYDobjected to the proposal to send the Bill back to the Committee. It would involve a waste of time, as they had already carefully considered this question, and had unanimously decided to divide the cost of lighting the staircases between the owners and the Local Authority. As the result of a census among the occupiers of these blocks, it was ascertained that only 3 per cent. wished the staircases to be lit up at night. Surely, then, if the Public Authorities were anxious to have them lighted longer they ought to bear some portion of the cost. Hence the compromise which was arrived at by the Committee, before which £3,500,000 worth of property was represented, and it did not seem to him that the House ought to entertain the suggestion that the Committee should be asked to reconsider the proposal.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)said, it was always difficult, especially when one had had no opportunity of either hearing or seeing the evidence given by a Committee, to controvert the position taken up by the Members; but looking at this question on general grounds, and knowing, as he did, a great deal about the locality, he was sure the evidence was of such a nature as to convince the Committee that something was required to be done in the matter of lighting the staircases. But it was a rather strong order for the Committee to assume that this was simply a

    697
    matter of public convenience—in the ordinary acceptance of the term, as applied to the question of street lighting. Surely if the persons who erected these blocks created a public inconvenience by putting out the lights at a given hour, there was nothing unjust in calling upon them to make such arrangements as would avoid that public inconvenience. In that part of London which he represented there were large numbers of these blocks, and there was a very strong feeling in favour of the staircases being lighted, but he could not see why the small householder and small shopkeeper, who already paid heavily for lighting the thoroughfares, should have an extra charge thrown upon them in order to put an end to a public inconvenience caused by the action of private owners. That was the crux of the situation, and he submitted that if the owners of these dwellings de-sired to maintain the reputation hitherto borne by them they should pay the expense of providing the necessary lighting. He was told that under the Burgh and Police (Scotland) Act owners of such properties were called upon to provide a, proper amount of lighting, although an exception was made in the case of the City of Glasgow, where the Local Authorities contributed something. But was not that exception due to the fact that the Glasgow Authorities had control over their own gas supply, and therefore felt themselves to be able to deal generously with their own people out of that which was common property? In London the case was very different, for there it was felt they were already paying £500,000 annually in excess of what they ought to pay for their gas supply. He hoped the House would seriously consider this question, and would bear in mind that the lighting of the staircases would be of great advantage to the occupants of the blocks, who were terribly inconvenienced at the present time by the niggardly proceedings of Companies owning the properties. Although this class of workmen's dwellings was not his ideal of what the working man's home should be, they could not deny that the blocks were a necessity in the present conditions of London life, and the proper lighting of them would be very beneficial to the residents in them.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, the circumstances in which the House was placed were a little diffi-
    698
    cult. The London County Council were responsible for the proposal that the staircases should be lighted, and that the owners of the property should pay the cost. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green now asked that that proposal should be given effect to, but the Committee before which the Bill went had after careful investigation decided that the Lighting Authority should have the power of regulating the lighting of these staircases, and that it should in consequence bear half the cost. It seemed to him it would be rather difficult to refer the matter back to the Committee. It was rather a question for the House to determine, and he should not press his Motion, but that he should avail himself of the subsequent opportunity of raising the issue by moving to strike out the clause.
    MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.), as a Member of the Committee, wished to say a word as to their decision. The Committee were absolutely unanimous in thinking that the proposals in the Bill were of a somewhat stringent character, and they felt that the very considerable expense that would be caused to owners and occupiers would be more than was justified. It was proposed to work these lighting provisions through the Vestries concerned, and it appeared that those Vestries had not been very largely consulted, and there was no evidence before the Committee to show that there was any great wish on their part that the duty should be put upon them. The evidence showed that- the inhabitants and proprietors of these flats did not desire them to be lighted after 11 o'clock. They thought that if the lights were kept up after 11 o'clock it would be undesirable in the interests of quietness. The Committee came to the conclusion that the initiative should be left to the Lighting Authority. The responsibility would rest with the Vestries, and they would have to exercise their own discretion as to putting their powers in force. The Committee felt that as the arrangement was as much for the convenience of the police as of the inhabitants of the blocks the cost should be divided.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)said, that after the strong and unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the Mem-

    699
    bers of the Committee he thought it would be useless to refer the matter back to them, as it was obvious they would stand by the decision at which they had already arrived. As the Vestries had not had an opportunity of considering this matter he would suggest that the Motion be withdrawn and the Bill be postponed a short time, so that the hon. Member could take another opportunity of raising a Debate on a point as to which in the absence of evidence he himself should be sorry to express an opinion.
    MR. HOWELL: If the House desires I will take that course, and will raise the question on a future occasion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 22nd May.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNIFORMS BILL.—(No. 12.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)said, the Bill of which he had to move the Second Reading was a non-contentious measure. Its object was to regulate and restrict the wearing of uniforms, in view of the practice, objectionable to both officers and men of both Services, that had grown up of clothing sandwich-men in uniforms or colourable imitations of uniforms. Uniforms were also used for fraudulent purposes. In a breach of promise case which he read the other day the defendant, a clerk, knowing the effect a military uniform had on the fair sex, approached the lady in an officer's uniform. He was accepted and broke his promise, and then came the action. Again, in the Chamber of Horrors there was an effigy of the murderer Deeming dressed in the uniform of an Indian cavalry regiment. When soldiers saw that sort of thing they were naturally disgusted. He could not help thinking, considering the splendid services rendered both by the Army and the Navy, that the honour of the uniform should be very jealously guarded. Why should tradesmen, for the purposes of advertisement, be allowed to go into the back streets to collect men to dress in Her Majesty's uniform: did that, not destroy the honour of wearing a soldier's
    700
    uniform? He believed that in all other countries it was illegal to wear colourable imitations of uniforms. In this country, beyond all others, the honour of the Queen's uniform ought to be most strictly guarded, because the Military Service was entirely voluntary. Even the War Office Authorities depended to a certain extent on the smartness of the military uniform, for did they not send their smartest men in uniform to Trafalgar Square to get recruits? Yet it was possible that those recruits, after seeing the recruiting sergeant, came face to face in the next street with some unfortunate sandwich-man dressed in uniform, but presenting a miserable spectacle. It was not only civilians who were deceived. It sometimes happened that officers themselves were taken in. An impostor in a purchased uniform had actually been entertained as an officer at a regimental mess. The object of this Bill was to prevent occurrences of that kind, and generally to maintain the dignity of Her Majesty's Service. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    COLONEL BROOKFIELD, in seconding the Motion, said, that he was anxious that the House should not think that this was a measure claimed by soldiers and sailors who sought to have conferred on them some exceptional privilege. It was, in fact, promoted to relieve these men of a serious injustice, and to rid the country of a scandal which was not tolerated in any other part of the world. The scandal with which the Bill dealt was the wearing of the national uniforms without any sort of authority and with every circumstance of derision and degradation, mainly in the streets of London and the large towns by sandwich-men for advertising purposes, and also by vagrants and mountebanks of every degree. His hon. Friend (Mr. Farquhar-son) had cited some very extraordinary examples of the laxity of the existing law. He would especially call the attention of the House and of the Secretary of State for War to the commonest prevailing form of this evil—that of street advertisement. Not long ago a man distributed advertisements in the streets dressed in the full uniform of a Staff officer. Personally, he felt less sympathy for the Staff officers than for any other persons in the Army, as it was the bad example of the Head Quarters Staff

    701
    of the Army in matters of uniform which had had so much to do with the fact that officers throughout the Army evaded wearing their own uniforms whenever they could do so. Still, the Staff officer was entitled to redress in a matter of this sort. Another case look place last year, when, for purposes of advertisement, there was a long string of men attired as bluejackets, and commanded or marshalled—to make the thing complete—by an individual dressed as a naval officer, this individual carrying a sword and wearing a cocked hat. Naval men had no redress against tin's evil. This year, opposite Charing Cross Railway Station, was to be seen a procession of men dressed as Royal Marine Light Infantry, with the pith helmet. He called the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the matter, and that right hon. Gentleman acted with more promptitude than he had ever secured from any other branch of the Services. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded, by moral pressure of some kind, in having this particular scandal immediately abated. The last case of the sort which he would cite showed that even Volunteers had a great deal to complain of in this matter. Last year a number of sandwich-men were dressed in the uniform of a corps of which everyone had heard favourably—the Artists' Rifles. The Adjutant of the corps remonstrated. The contractor heard him with the greatest good temper and urbanity, and, in answer to his representations, clothed all his men in the uniform of another battalion. Of course, he could add to these examples indefinitely. In the country districts the commonest form of this abuse was for bands of musicians to appear adorned in military garb; their appearance, he believed, excited great enthusiasm in the villages. There could be no objection to bands wearing proper uniforms—proper prescribed uniforms, in the way they did in every other part of the world; but there was no reason why they should be allowed to wear the honourable and distinctive uniforms of particular regiments, and even badges which were supposed to have been conferred on those regiments as an exclusive privilege to reward gallant services which had been performed. He understood that some hon. Members thought that this question of the bands constituted a difficulty in regard to the Bill.
    702
    But he could assure them most earnestly that they need not so regard the matter. Certainly, if there was a difficulty it could easily be removed. His hon. Friend was quite willing that they should insert in the saving clause of the Bill in Committee any word which would make the clause more distinct than it now was. It was true that a certain word was omitted from the saving clause—the word "jacket." It would, however, be quite possible to include that word, and thus the objection would be met. In country villages the evil had greatly increased in the last few years and was likely to increase there owing to the present War Office Regulations. The village shop now nearly always had a supply of these picturesque dresses for any purchaser who liked to wear them, and it was quite a, common thing to find persons employed as waggoners or otherwise, or not employed at all, swaggering about in the costume of the Royal Artillery, Hussars, Dragoons, or other regiment. Stablemen might even be seen wearing two or three good-conduct-badges which had been purchased at the local store. It frequently happened that a lad who wished to buy one of those military tunics stipulated that it should have a sergeant's chevron or two or three good-conduct badges. He was sure that the House would wish to remedy an evil of this kind. As to the method which they should adopt—it was a curious fact that whenever the authorities hitherto had tried to deal with the matter they had appeared to do so in the most disingenuous manner possible. Instead of accepting the principle that this Bill sought to establish that it was dishonest for unauthorised persons to wear a uniform prescribed for a certain class of the community and for no other, the line which they had tried to take was simply to make it difficult to buy or to sell the uniforms. But, as a matter of fact, the latest Regulations made it more easy than ever for uniforms to be bought and sold. In 1875 the Public Stores Act was passed. If it had actually been the policy of the authorities to deal with the matter in the indirect and, as he called it, disingenuous manner, they missed a good opportunity then of doing so with comparative success. The Act was extremely rigid in its Regulations about the other articles with which the soldier was supplied. It prescribed that marking

    703
    stores improperly with the broad arrow or other badge of the same kind, should constitute a misdemeanour which might be punished by imprisonment for two years. The offence of obliterating the Government mark was made a felony, with a possible punishment of seven years' penal servitude. In Clause 13 necessaries which might be supplied to soldiers, Militiamen, and Volunteers were expressly exempted from the operation of the Act. To show that this method of dealing with the evil was ineffectual, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that it did not deal with the case of condemned uniforms. Some time ago he purchased from a shop-window two uniforms—one of the Royal Marine Artillery and the other of the Royal Marine Light Infantry—paying for them 3s. 6d. each. The vendor said that he had a large supply of other patterns inside if he liked to look at them. He sent the two tunics to be examined at headquarters, and was informed that they bore the condemned mark, and that therefore no offence had been committed. It was evident, therefore, that this way of dealing with the question did not suffice. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman of a scarlet jacket of the Inniskillen Dragoons which he handed to him, and which proved after long investigation to be made by a private tailor, or at any rate never to have been issued by the proper authorities. It was clear that the present was not the method of meeting the difficulty. They naturally turned to the example of other countries. No other great Military Power, or, he would say, warlike Power, if hon. Gentlemen preferred the expression, tolerated this evil for a moment. It was recognised as having a most serious effect upon recruiting—upon the legitimate prestige of the Army. How could General Officers in high authority or the Secretary of State for War address the troops or the public on the subject of the honour of wearing Her Majesty's uniform when it was made to be no honour at all? With what consistency could they put in The Gazette that such and such an officer had the right on retirement to retain his rank and wear his uniform when he could give himself permission if he liked to appear to do both under any circumstances without consulting anyone or being subject to any punishment. In
    704
    France, the offence with which the Bill dealt was punished with six months to two years' imprisonment, without the option of a fine. In Germany, the punishment was six weeks' imprisonment, or a fine of £7 10s. In Austria-Hungary and Italy there was a heavy fine, which went as high in the case of Italy as £40. He turned to the example afforded in the distant parts of the British Empire. By the Indian Penal Code, Clause 7, Section 140, it was provided that whoever, not being a soldier in the Military or Naval Service of the Queen, wore any garb, or carried any token resembling any garb or token used by such soldier, should be punished with imprisonment by the Administration for a term which might extend to three months, or by a fine which might extend to 500 rupees, or by both. But the framers of the Bill had not relied on Continental models, nor even copied the drastic but useful enactment of the Indian Government. The main enactment in the Bill now before the House was taken from a recent statute of the Colony of Victoria. And he must be allowed to remind any hon. Gentleman who thought that in this modest Bill some serious injury was meditated against the liberties of the people—of the Civil population—that that was not likely to be the case when the main enactment had proved acceptable to the wisdom of the Victorian Legislature. The Act to which he referred was called the Discipline and Defence Act, Victoria. Before sitting down he would appeal to the House to show a little extra indulgence to the soldiers and sailors, owing to the fact that they did not possess any votes. [Cries of "No !"] Well, of course there were exceptions, but the great mass of the soldiers and sailors had not that influence on the House that other sections of the community possessed. He thought that it would be a sad thing if the bands of musicians, who, he believed, were asking some hon. Members not to accept the Bill—these bands, who were wearing uniforms intended for the Army or the Navy, were to be able to exercise such pressure on the Members of that House by the authority of their votes as to over-ride the claims for redress of honest soldiers and sailors who did not possess political influence. He trusted that the House in its wisdom would accept the Second Reading of the Bill, and so do an im-

    705
    portant act of justice to the soldiers and the sailors in the Services.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. R. Farquharson.)
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)said, that as one of the comparatively limited number of Members on that side of the House who had been connected with the Military Service he wished to make his position in regard to the Bill quite clear. He allowed his name to be placed on the back of the Bill, because he was led to believe that its provisions would by no possibility give rise to controversial discussion. He himself was well known to hold strong views in favour of submitting national disputes to arbitration rather than settling them by war. He deplored the fact that in the present state of civilisation, and owing, moreover, to the fact that humanity is what it is, great defensive armaments had still to be maintained at tremendous expense, but under those circumstances it was their duty as custodians of the nation's purse to see that her Forces were maintained in a state of efficiency. He could place history under contribution to prove that the success of an Army was not due altogether to the power of its armament, or to the genius of its General, but in a great measure it was attributable to its morals and to the discipline which prevailed among the troops. This was more than ever the case by reason of recent changes in tactics. What should be the first, step of the Military Authorities when they took a man from the plough-tail? As a, strong Radical, he of course sincerely wished that the landlords of this country were in such a state that it would be impossible to induce men to leave the plough-tail, but, inasmuch as men were tempted to enter the Army everything should be done by the State to make a man who enlisted feel that when he put on the Queen's uniform he at once rose to a position superior to that of his late comrades at the plough. That sense of superiority which had been fostered during his service, perhaps in foreign countries and under great hardships, would be entirely dispelled, however, if on his return to his native village he saw some unkempt, round-shouldered man with shambling gait, masquerading about the town in the uniform which he had
    706
    been taught to look at with respect. Hon. Members around him would doubtless regard all that as mere military sentiment, but, he remembered reading a speech by Macaulay in which he described how a Captain Elliott when he found a certain number of his fellow-countrymen overwhelmed with disaster and despair raised their spirits by hoisting the British flag, which reminded them that they belonged to a nation unaccustomed to defeat or submission, and assured them that although they might be separated from home by great oceans and big continents, not a hair of their heads would be injured with impunity. It was such a sentiment as that which the British soldier felt for his uniform, and he could only say that if he saw anyone masquerading in his uniform he should regard that as une mauvaise plaisanterie. Every Member of that House had a right to affix two letters after his name, and he believed most of them guarded that right jealously, as a mark that, in the opinion of their constituents, they were fitting persons to be their Representatives in the Legislative Council of the nation, and that they would feel justly aggrieved if the distinctiveness of the mark were lost sight of. For these reasons, and because he desired to prevent military uniforms being degraded, he should most certainly support the Bill.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)said, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington, and especially to his references to the power of the British flag, which he would like to see more freely displayed in Ireland. But be was inclined to oppose the Bill, because it would bear harshly upon the members of certain bands of the Orange Societies. He did not think that the loyal men who belonged to bands of this sort should be subject to penalties because they put on uniforms, and in that way expressed their desire to maintain the honour of the Crown and the integrity of the Empire. No one for a moment would say that the honour of the Army and Navy was not dear to Irish loyalists, and he hoped the House would pause before placing a limit on the liberty of these loyal men to wear colourable imitations of military uniforms.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, his object in supporting the Bill was that the wearing of uniforms unworthily by

    707
    unworthy persons acted us a direct bar and deterrent to the recruiting of respectable young men whom we were inviting to enter the ranks of the Army. He quite recognised the utility of bands, especially at Parliamentary elections, but in this matter of uniform he thought the House should consider the desire of the whole British Army, and not study the wishes of a few Members who looked to these bands for solace in the hour of defeat, moral or practical. He had never understood the dislike of officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army to wearing their uniforms when not on duty; but it might be due to some extent to the fact that advertising scarecrows in the streets could wear uniforms or portions of uniforms and thus bring them into ridicule. Certain it was that the feeling against uniforms pervaded the Army, and it also weighed with civilians. The other day a subaltern committed a breach of military discipline which eventually had to be reported to the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; and the Duke of Cambridge, by way of expressing his displeasure with the offence which the officer had committed, ordered that he was to wear his uniform for a specified time. Consider the absurdity of ordering a man to wear as a badge of disgrace and as a mark of the displeasure of the Commander-in-Chief the uniform which he ought to consider it an honour and a pleasure to wear. He would relate a circumstance which happened not long ago which would show how the wearing of the military uniform was looked on by civilians. A non-commissioned officer had to travel from Kingstown to Holyhead, and the officers of the London and North Western Railway considered that in his uniform he was not fit to travel by one of their mail steamers, and so they ordered him off the passenger steamer and made him travel by a cargo-boat. ["Oh !"] Now, this officer was necessarily a man of education and character, a worthy man and a good soldier. He was as respectable and as good a man as any Member of the House. As he had occasionally informed the House, he was an agricultural Member, and from his knowledge of agricultural districts he was able to say that military uniforms were often to be seen waving in the breeze to scare the birds away. What was of importance was that the improper wearing of uniforms Was a distinct bar
    708
    and deterrent to recruiting. When a young fellow from the County of Essex went to Trafalgar Square where recruiting sergeants congregated, having made up his mind to take the shilling, and there saw a procession of men clothed in parts of military uniforms and carrying advertisements of somebody's soap or somebody's pills, one was not so desirous of wearing the uniform himself. He hoped the Secretary for War might be induced to take a favourable view of the Bill.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): The short discussion to which we have listened comes upon us, I am sure, with a refreshing influence in the middle of an and waste of political Debate. We have had placed before us an interesting subject in itself, and we have listened to a number of anecdotes and incidents which cannot fail to have moved and interested the House. On the general question which is raised by the Bill there cannot be two opinious within the walls of the House. We are all concerned in preventing any public scandal or abuse such as in some cases has been proved to have occurred; we are all concerned in maintaining the dignity of Her Majesty's uniform and in preventing anything that would tend to degrade it. I confess that I do not take the extreme view which has been adopted by some of my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken. I have been so unfortunate, perhaps, as never to have met these rows of sandwich-men in the street. [Cries of "Oh !"] Well, I have not had the advantage of the hon. Gentleman opposite who says "Oh !" I can only say most sincerely that I have not seen them, and, therefore, although I have no doubt they exist, they are not as ubiquitous as is supposed. If I were disposed to offer myself as a recruit, I should not be deterred by the vision of these sandwich-men. I object to seeing sandwich-men attired in any preposterous dress. I hold it to be a public scandal that it should be allowed by the police that rows of men should be compelled, in order to earn their bread, to parade the streets in dresses which degrade them and in dresses which are likely to bring ridicule upon certain classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I will quote to the House a very extreme instance. I remember that some years ago there were sandwich men who went

    709
    about in the dress of convicts—I think with chains and with all sorts of horrors attached to them. Well, convicts are not a class of the community who are altogether deserving of our pious respect, but still it is most improper and, in fact, most horrible that anything should be done to degrade them still further than is necessary for the punishment they have to undergo. I take that as an extreme case. If they were all dressed as clergymen or in any other distinctive dross I should think it equally improper and revolting to the sense of public decency. I should have thought that exhibitions of that kind might have been met by Police Regulations, which would have prevented the necessity of legislation on the subject. As to an occasional Field Marshal or Staff officer being seen in some masquerading Guy Fawkes procession, I do not attach very much importance to that, improper and indecent as it is. But, when we are told that the wearing of uniforms by persons who are not entitled to wear them is prohibited in other countries, and that we should take those countries as our model, we must remember what the state of the law is in those countries. According to the Penal Codes of France and Germany, not only is it against the law for a man to wear a uniform he is not entitled to wear, but it is illegal for a citizen to change his name or in any way to interfere with what in France they call Vétat civile. That is a state of the law which does not exist in this country, and I believe that if we introduced anything of the kind it would be an entire innovation in the law of this country. In our Dependency of India a distinction is made, as it is with reference to police constables in this country, to this extent—that heavy penalties are imposed where a man assumes a uniform of any kind for the purpose of passing himself off as having a right to wear it. The mere wearing of a uniform at a fancy dress ball or at private theatricals or upon any occasion of that kind surely comes within a different category. If a burglar dresses himself as a constable or as a post office official for the purpose of obtaining entrance to a house under false pretences he commits another sort of offence altogether. This Bill as it stands would, as I have already stated, introduce an entire innovation into the law, not merely in
    710
    reference to this particular point, which is, after all, a small one, but with regard to the whole attitude of the law towards private individuals. It has been put to mo as strongly as this: that there is nothing in the English law to prevent any person—let the House imagine the enormity of this conduct—going out to dinner in the official dross of a Cabinet Minister, or wearing the insignia of the Bath; there is nothing in the law to prevent any person from placing a ducal coronet on his carriage, or on his wheelbarrow, and there is no express enactment prohibiting a crossing-sweeper from plying his avocation in full episcopal costume, although if by doing so he caused a great public scandal or caused an obstruction in the streets he would probably find himself amenable to the Common Law.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who gives that opinion?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Really if the hon. Gentleman asks me to state who is the particular lawyer who supplies me with the information I use in the course of my speech he might as well ask who supplied me with the arguments I am using or the opinions I express. The grossest case is that of men who are employed by way of advertisement in the street; and there comes in the point of public scandal. I cannot help thinking that much less ambitious means might be adopted than those of an Act of Parliament for the purpose of preventing such an abuse. We get into very vague quarters when we deal with "uniforms," and especially when we come to speak of "colourable imitations." My hon. Friend opposite, in the interests of Ulster—where, I suppose, they are very fond of colours and uniforms, and bands and noise generally—has pleaded that bands should be allowed to go about in his country. That point was alluded to by another of the Members opposite, who pointed out that bands go about in England, and Scotland also. If bands are to be allowed to dress themselves in some sort of gay uniform, but are to be prohibited from using any uniform which can be said to be a colourable imitation of any uniform in the Service, those who know how diverse those uniforms are will see how difficult it will be for them to carry out the prohibition. There is a further point

    711
    which I would urge. This Bill applies to the Navy as well as to the Army. There is a very great risk that by a sweeping enactment of this kind you will do very much more than you really intend to. There is to be no colourable imitation of the naval uniform. How, then, are the officers and stewards and men on board all our great passenger ships to be treated? There is not one of them who would not come within the category of those who wear colourable imitations of the naval uniform. Well, having the great desire to assist hon. Members who are endeavouring to prevent any such scandalous degradation of the uniform as has been referred to, and sympathising with them in their objects, I cannot help thinking that the Bill appears to be too strong for the object it seeks to accomplish, and I, therefore, shall hardly be disposed to support it actively—at all events, in its present condition. At the same time, I do think that the matter requires looking into, and it is precisely one of those semi-military and semi-civilian questions which deal with a territory in which the civil and military populations and their views, prejudices, and interests overlap, and one of those questions which the House of Commons is better able than any other body to deal with. Therefore, what I should suggest to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill is that either the Second Reading should be allowed to be taken pro formâ, or that the Bill should be withdrawn with a view to our having an inquiry by a Select Committee. I should raise no objection to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, but perhaps it would be better to have a Select Committee on the subject without referring the Bill to it. I think that a well-constituted Committee might be able to guard the House against the dangers which I have ventured to point out, and at the same time to arrive at some way of dealing with a scandal which gives offence not only to many soldiers and sailors, but also to many civilians. I am not one of those who take an extreme view of the case. I do not believe that, after all, there is any great injurious effect created by the clothing worn by sandwich-men. I am not aware that in any other parts of the country than the West of London sandwich-men go about in military uniform; and when the hon. Gentleman opposite suggests that the reason why
    712
    officers do not like to wear their uniform except when on duty, is that they see these men wearing it about the streets, I think that only shows how far a natural feeling on the subject may lead a man of a somewhat enthusiastic turn of mind. As to the wearing of the uniform, I repeat now what I have already said, that I should be glad to take any step in my power to further impose the obligation upon officers to wear their uniform. But certainly what is before us now does not concern the uniform of the officers as much as the uniform of the private soldier, and I think that the best way of accomplishing the object my hon. Friend has in view would be to have a Select Committee.
    SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, that all who were interested in the proposal embodied in the Bill would recognise the sympathetic way in which it had been mot by the right hon. Gentleman, but it was for the House to consider whether the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had adduced were sufficient to lead the House to refuse to read the Bill a second time. The right hon. Gentleman, having expressed full sympathy with the object of the Bill, had gone out of his way to suggest various difficulties which appeared to him to arise out of a very simple and small measure. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would apparently strike at a very harmless institution of private theatricals or at fancy balls where the uniform might be worn. In those cases, however, the object of wearing the uniform was not to discredit it, and, generally speaking, a person who wore a uniform at a theatrical entertainment was the first or second hero of the piece. To the extent to which the practice of wearing the uniform for advertising purposes was carried, it would be hard to deny that it must have an injurious effect, and, if so, why not, in the interests of the Army, stop it? The point at issue was a small one. The Army was not sufficiently attractive as it stood. Whatever was said about the satisfactory state of recruiting, year by year the Government had the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining a full supply of thoroughly efficient recruits. Almost every second year the standard had to be reduced, or some other measure had to be adopted in order to obtain a full supply of recruits.

    713
    That being so, it was surely important to do everything that could be done, without spending money needlessly, to make the Army attractive, and to put a stop to anything that would make it unattractive. If the Bill were passed it would be possible, the right hon. Gentleman said, to proceed against almost every steward on an Atlantic liner for wearing a colourable imitation of Her Majesty's uniform. The object of the Bill, however, was to stop this inappropriate way of advertising, and no one could seriously suppose that, in consequence of its passage, anyone would ever take proceedings against the stewards of the Mercantile Marine. If the Bill wore read a second time a Select Committee could make any alterations necessary to remove from it anything that appeared to be objectionable, although he must say that, in his opinion, a more harmless and unobjectionable Bill was never brought forward. No one could suppose that if this Bill were passed the civil status of the population would be interfered with in the smallest possible way. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in other countries, where trifling with uniforms would not be allowed, the status of the citizen was guarded in a variety of other ways. But what had that to do with the question? The fact that a man in France could not change his name without the permission of the Legal Authorities surely had nothing to do with the question whether sandwich-men should be allowed to go about the streets wearing, not "colourable imitations" of the uniform, but the real uniform which had absolutely been worn by men in Her Majesty's Army. Something was being done every year to raise the status of the soldier. The Army now represented as respectable, well-conducted, and honourable a body of citizens as could be found anywhere in the country, and its moral qualities were improving and advancing from day to day. If it were the case that this practice of throwing ridicule on the uniform did any damage whatever to the cause of recruiting and to the character of the Army, he would strongly appeal to hon. Gentlemen to express their opinion in the matter by going to a Second Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee no doubt it could be modified under
    714
    his guidance, and it would then have the effect of putting a stop to what was really a nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman thought it desirable that officers should wear their uniform. Well, they had not the slightest objection provided they got a uniform they could really wear. But so long as the officers' full dress was so constructed by Regulation that there was not even room to stow away a cigarette or a pocket-handkerchief, they would be averse to pursuing their avocations in that guise, however splendid and becoming it might be. The remedy was in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the House would accept the offer of the Secretary for War and send the Bill after its Second Reading to a Select Committee, where, he believed, many of the objections that had been put forward would be removed. The rejection of the Second Reading would be an encouragement to those who now employed these sandwich-men, while the affirmation of its principle, even if the Bill did not proceed further this Session, would give these men a first warning of which they would probably take considerable notice, and it would have a great moral effect.
    MR. STUART-WORTLTEYsaid, he wished the Secretary for War to know that the matter could not be dealt with solely and entirely by Police Regulation. In the first place, if it were so dealt with, the Government, he thought, could not act directly except with the Metropolis alone; and even in London legislation would be required. When he was at the Home Office the case arose of a number of sandwich-men being sent out dressed in the uniform of the Old Guard of Napoleon. It was thought desirable to stop this, and it was stopped by private representations; but there was no legal power to make the employer of these sandwich-men desist from the objectionable form of advertisement. He would advise his hon. Friend to take the Second Reading now that he could get it, though he thought the Secretary of State for War had argued the question too much from a civil point of view and too little on the ground that the Bill was designed in the interests of the Army.
    CAPTAIN BAGOTsaid, that if this was a matter which could really be altered by Police

    715
    Regulations, the argument of the Secretary for War that it brought about a great innovation of the law seemed to be rather unreasonable. But if the argument was a reasonable one, the best means of altering the present state of the case would evidently be by Act of Parliament rather than by suggestions made to the police. Since short service had come into operation it had been generally accepted by both the Military and the Civil Authorities that everything should be done to popularise the Army, and to make the wearing of the Queen's uniform dignified and free from any suspicion of contempt, in the same way as it was in France, Germany, Italy, and other countries. For his own part, he did not think the argument as to sandwich-men and others would have any actual influence on recruiting. They constantly heard complaints of the soldier in uniform being refused admission into music halls and restaurants. There had been a great outcry on the subject, and the Secretary for War invariably sympathised with the complaints, but, at the same time, nothing was done. This Bill simply attempted to carry out the idea that Her Majesty's uniform should be a dress which the soldier should be brought up to consider an honour to wear, and that he ought never to have to undergo the indignity of its being brought into disrepute in the streets or in other places. There was certainly a strong feeling among officers of the Army on this subject, and he hoped the reasons which had been given in favour of the Bill would be acknowledged, and the measure adopted. There was another point which had not yet been alluded to. Up to about a year ago the British soldier had to return his worn-out uniform into stores, but new Regulations had been issued under which the soldier was permitted to sell his old uniform or to dispose of it in any way he liked under certain conditions. The consequence was that, under the new Regulations, there would be more old uniforms at the disposal of private soldiers, and a greater temptation to sell them to the first comer. In these circumstances, he thought it was very desirable that some measure should be taken—either by Act of Parliament, or by some new Police Regulations, if the Secretary for War saw fit—to prevent the scandal and disgrace to which the uniform had been
    716
    subjected for so many years. He certainly hoped the Bill would obtain a Second Reading, and that the Secretary for War would take the necessary steps in the matter.
    MR. BENNETTsaid that, when he put down his Amendment to oppose the Bill, he took a strong view that the measure was one which would tend to a serious interference with the liberty of the subject; and he therefore felt it his duty to place his Amendment on the Paper. He was very glad that the Secretary for War had put the matter so ably and satisfactorily before the House; and when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, he (Mr. Bennett) confessed that his mind was very largely satisfied, and in view of the preciousness of the time of this House, he should decline now to move his Amendment, and leave the matter as it now was before them.
    MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONthanked the hon. Member for Gainsborough for abstaining from moving his Amendment.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  OUTDOOR. RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.—(No. 14.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. STRACHEY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he did not think it necessary for him to occupy the time of the House very long, as this was the same Bill which he brought in last Session, and which met with approval on both sides of the House. At that time the Bill was one which was of local importance only, and which was generally supported in the County of Somerset, a portion of which he had the honour to represent; but he thought that this Session he might claim that it was of national importance, as the Friendly Societies throughout the country were unanimously in favour of it. The Bill was a short one, containing practically only one clause, and it would, perhaps, save time if he proceeded to read the Operative Clause of the Bill, which was as follows:—
    "Notwithstanding any Orders or Regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners or the Local

    717
    Government Board under and by virtue of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, or of any Act amending the said Act, it shall be lawful for any Board of Guardians to grant relief out of the poor rates to any person otherwise entitled to such relief, notwithstanding that the said person shall, by reason of his membership of a Friendly Society be in receipt of any sum, and that in estimating the amount of the relief that shall be granted to such person, being a member of a Friendly Society as aforesaid, the Board of Guardians need not take into consideration the amount which may be received by him from such Friendly Society."
    What did that clause do? It only gave power to Boards of Guardians to do legally what, they wore constantly in the habit of doing now illegally. In the case of sickness the amount given by some Friendly Societies to a member was very small, only amounting to some 4s. or 5s. a week, which made it necessary for a man to go to the Board of Guardians in order to get it supplemented, and what he asked the House to do was to make it legal for the Hoards to give outdoor relief in addition to and without taking into consideration the whole amount a man received from his Society. He had been told that there was some doubt upon this matter, that the Local Government Board had not settled the question, and that Guardians might give relief in these cases without taking into account the amount received from a Friendly Society. That was not the case, however, for the Local Government Board in a letter to the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset distinctly laid it down that the Guardians must take into account any contributions the applicant was receiving from a Friendly Society and then add no more to that amount than they held to be necessary to deal with the destitution of a person similarly circumstanced who was not a member of a Friendly Society. Again, in the 10th edition of Glen's Poor Law Orders, it was laid down that whatever the Guardians might do in giving relief beyond the actual necessities of the case they would by so doing have acted illegally, and would be liable to be surcharged. This Bill last year received a good deal of support from various parts of the House, but, it, was only locally supported outside, principally, as he had already intimated, in the County of Somerset. This year, however, not only had it, got, that local support, but they might clam for it national support, and in addition to being backed by Somerset Members it also had upon
    718
    it the names of an hon. Member from Wiltshire and of London, the Metropolitan Members being the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell). He had had a letter sent him from Mr. Cleveland, the Secretary to the National Independent Order of Oddfellows, giving the Bill the most hearty support. This letter was dated April 5, 1894, and was as follows:—
    "Dear Sir,—I beg to hand you a copy of the resolution passed at the Conference of Friendly Societies held in London on the 21st ultimo, at which were represented 2,509,876 adult members possessing capital amounting to £18,145,826."

    RESOLUTION.
    That all Friendly Societies should support in the most earnest manner the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Strachey, empowering Poor Law Guardians to grant outdoor relief to members of Friendly Societies irrespective of amounts receivable from Sick Societies."
    He thought, after reading such a letter, he need not urge any argument as to Friendly Societies being unanimously in favour of this principle. The Friendly Society which brought the question before the Conference, the Hearts of Oak, brought it not only on the question of sick allowance, in regard to which he believed that Society was able to be generous, but they supported it as much as anything upon the principle that they were seriously affected by the present state of the law as regarded old age pensions. The Hearts of Oak had adopted the principle of old age pensions, by which after a certain age and after paying certain contributions its members were allowed a pension of 4s. a week. The Hearts of Oak Society considered it was a great hardship that one of their members who by his own exertions and thrift had secured for himself in his old age a pension of 4s. a week, if compelled by necessity to apply for outdoor relief, should at once be met with the statement by the Guardians that they should deduct the whole of the amount he had earned by his industry for his old age, from any assistance they thought he ought to receive according to the necessities of his case. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, who was then President of the Local Government Board, said that from the Government point of view there was no objection to this Bill, but he argued that there ought to be delay. The right hon. Gentleman's plea was that this question had

    719
    been referred to the Commission on the Aged Poor; that Commission had sat 36 times, and he expected it would report in ample time next year for legislation. The Secretary of State for India, as reported in Hansard, made that statement on the 14th of June, 1893. But the Commission on the Aged Poor had not reported yet, and he had failed to learn from any possible source when it was likely to do so. Even if they wore told it was likely to report soon he did not think that that would be a ground for delaying the passage of the Pill through this House, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, on a later date than that—namely, on the 26th of August, 1893, writing to him (Mr. Strachey), said the Commission had concluded its sittings, and he expected it would report in October, 1893, so that there would be ample time for legislation in the following Session. Since that time five mouths had passed; there had still been no Report, and all this time injustice was being done to members of Friendly Societies, and it was very hard they should be expected to wait in this indefinite sort of way. There was a great feeling among the members of Friendly Societies that the Government were trying to stave the matter off, and that they did not take sufficient interest in it. He did not think that was the case for a moment, but he thought the Government would be ill-advised if they were again to put this Pill off, or not do more than permit the Second Reading to be taken simply because of a hypothetical Report of this Commission. This matter was one that ought not to frighten the Local Government Board. Although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might express his sympathy with the Pill, he rather thought they should find the Local Government Board would object to it becoming law. He would point out, however, that it was not compulsory but permissive; and who, he should like to ask, would be better able to exercise a discretion and judge of the cases than the Boards of Guardians on the spot? They might be sure that the Guardians would not make this extra allowance in undeserving cases. The present state of the law was such as to be a direct discouragement of thrift. In counties like Somerset, and Wiltshire, and Dorset, and others in the West of England, where wages were low, members of
    720
    Friendly Societies were only able to subscribe such an amount as would enable them to get, perhaps, for throe mouths 5s. a week, and then they would be cut down to a smaller sum. If a man, through sickness or accident, became incapacitated from following his employment, it was perfectly ridiculous to expect him to support himself and family on 5s. a week; and therefore a man was inclined to ask himself if it was worth while joining Friendly Societies when he found that the man who did not join was in as good a position as he before the Board of Guardians in the matter of relief. The man who did not join would get, say, 10s. a week from the Guardians, whilst the man who did join a Friendly Society would only get 5s., and thus was penalised to this extent for having throughout his life practised the utmost self-denial in order that he might make some provision for sickness. It could not be urged that this Bill would discourage thrift, because its tendency would be to directly encourage it, whereas the present state of the law discouraged thrift. If the President of the Local Government Board could see his way to support the Bill entirely it would not only be a source of satisfaction to the great Friendly Societies who supported it, but it would be a great inducement to men to join Friendly Societies and also to go in for old age pensions, as in the Hearts of Oak Society, which would be an important step in the right direction. If he resisted this Bill the Local Government Board would be throwing a direct impediment in the way of men making provision for old age pensions. He hoped, therefore, the Bill would meet with the favourable consideration of the President of the Local Government Board, and he begged to move that it be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Strachey.)
    COLONEL GUNTER (York, W. R., Barkstone Ash)supported the Bill. Speaking from an experience of more than 20 years as the Chairman of a, largo Board of Guardians in Yorkshire, he said he had found practical difficulty in dealing with this very subject in a way which would be to the advantage of the men themselves and also to the ratepayers. When a man became incapaci-

    721
    tated through illness he very often required nutriment and nourishment to bring him round more than anything else, and if he had a family, even if he got 10s. a week from a Friendly Society to which he belonged, he might require another 10s. from the Board of Guardians to put him right. There was no doubt it was far cheaper to the ratepayers to give a man 10s. a week for a month than dole out relief to him at the rate of 2s. 6d. a week for three months. The real object of the Bill was to bring into practical working a better system, and he hoped that not only would the House give it a Second Reading, but also pass it into a law. If they took away the desire of men to belong to Friendly Societies they would take away from them a great boon which the)' obtained by their membership. If a man who did not belong to a Society fell ill he did not send for a doctor, in the hope that the illness was slight and would soon pass over him. The result was that he often got worse and came to the Guardians in such a low physical state that it was a considerable time before he was restored to health. But if a man belonged to one of these thrift Societies the doctor came at once to see him, ordered him proper nutriment and nourishment, and if the 10s. a week he might receive from a Friendly Society was not enough to support him and his family, he ought to be able to come to the Board of Guardians, who, if they were sensible people, would allow him another 10s., which would bring him round far quicker than if a small stipend were doled out to him barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. He hoped the Bill would pass the Second Heading and subsequent stages, and become law.
    MR. LAMBERTsincerely hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not only support the measure, but do his utmost to help it to pass into law. He trusted the Local Government Board officials would not interpose in the matter at all, for surely it did not require a Royal Commission on Aged Poor to tell them what to do. It was the duty of the Government and of legislation to foster thriftiness and providence in every possible way. The law at present was a direct incentive against thrift, and irrespective of what any Royal Commission might say, it was the duty of the
    722
    Government to induce men to do what they possibly could to join Friendly Societies so that they might help themselves and free themselves from the degradation of becoming paupers if they were incapacitated for work. This measure did not fetter the action of Boards of Guardians in any way. In two mouths more they hoped to have reformed Boards of Guardians, and he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would trust such Boards and say they might decide for themselves whether a man was deserving of more humane treatment because he belonged to a Friendly Society. Under the present system it almost seemed that a man who had been a sober, industrious, and provident citizen and joined a Friendly Society was not as worthy of proper treatment as the thriftless and improvident. They had heard a great deal about the classification of indoor paupers. If it were necessary TO classify indoor paupers it ought to be necessary to classify those who received outdoor relief. Any measure like this, which would tend to the more humane treatment of those who had helped themselves, was deserving of every support, and he hoped this Bill would therefore receive the support of the President of the Local Government Board and would soon become law.
    MR. BARTLEYthought it very gratifying to find a consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of this very small but very important measure. The law as it stood was rigid in the extreme, and it was at the present time an absolute disqualification for any consideration on the part of persons in distress if they were in receipt of money from Friendly Societies. This Bill was intended to do away with this anomaly, and to do away with the disqualification that because a man had endeavoured in some way or other to provide for himself—it was true not sufficiently for all his wants—he should be in a worse position than his neighbour who had done nothing for himself. He had sat for many years on a Board of Guardians, and he had always felt the system had been one of encouragement of persons who came before the Board to try and prove they had done nothing. When persons asked for relief they did not try to show that they had made every effort for themselves, but their great aim was to show

    723
    they had done nothing stud had got nothing. That seemed to him to be the wrong way of looking at it. The aim of relief should be to give relief to a man when he was in distress in proportion as he deserved it by his previous life. If he had spent a bad, thriftless, extravagant, or dissipated life he should be relieved, but only under drastic conditions. Where a man had done his best, however, to provide for himself and his family, he ought not to be put in a worse, but in a better, position than his thriftless and improvident neighbour when he came before the Guardians for relief. He advocated it many years ago when he tried to have outdoor relief placed on a basis of thrift. He believed that was the only way, or one of the most efficacious ways, of attacking that very serious evil. They should take count of human nature as it was: and when they thought that a man earning a constant wage should, when young, join a Friendly Society, they should, at the same time, consider that the man would naturally calculate what were the advantages to be gained from joining a Friendly Society, and when he saw that he was really worse off by joining, he would argue, "It is of no use my joining this Society, because if I should ever come to trouble I should be in a worse position than if I had not joined the Society." He believed that if the Bill were passed it would have the effect of lessoning the number of applications for relief, for with the existing discouragement against joining Friendly Societies removed, numbers of people would crowd into those Societies, and thereby contract habits of thrift that would place them above the necessity of having to go for help to the rates in time of sickness and distress. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that the present state of the law was a great discouragement to thrift, and surely that was reason enough why it should be altered. He did not think that the question of old age pensions should be mixed up with this subject. It should be treated separately. This question, in his opinion, did not bear at all on the old age pension question, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not run off with the measure on the ground that the Commission on Old Age Tensions had not yet reported. The Bill was not a compulsory measure. It left everything to
    724
    the discretion of the Guardians, who were the only people who could know the merits of each case, and really he thought that if the Guardians considered that a man who had endeavoured to provide for himself by joining a Friendly Society was on that account deserving of assistance in a time of trouble, they should be allowed legally to give it to him instead of, as at present, winking at the law or setting the law at defiance. He was not a lax administrator of the Poor Law. On the contrary, he was a very rigid administrator, but he thought that if this Bill were passed it would tend to the cultivation of habits of thrift amongst the people, making the people more prosperous and, therefore, less liable to have recourse to Poor Law relief.
    MR. BARLOWsaid, that the Bill was heartily approved of not only in his own constituency, but all through the country. Since the Bill was printed, he had received a large number of communications—all expressing approval of the principle of the Bill—from various parts of the country. There seemed to be a prevailing impression that the present state of the law was a direct incentive to a neglect of thrift. That view was held by a large number of the working people, and it directly militated against the success of the Friendly Societies. The work of the Friendly Societies could bo viewed only with favour by those who believed in teaching the agricultural population that they ought to lay up for a rainy day, and surely, then, everything that tended to interfere with the success of the Friendly Societies should be removed. This subject was one which he had had occasion to study, and he was certain that the passing of the Bill would be hailed as a measure not only of justice but good policy. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not only grant the Second Heading, but take measures to secure that the Bill became law dining the present Session.
    MR. S. HOAREsaid, he was glad to join his voice to what seemed to be the general testimony of the House in favour of the Bill. The law at present actually made it a disadvantage to a man to belong to a Friendly Society, and if the House removed that anomaly, it would be doing a good work in the interest of thrift. It often happened that a member of a

    725
    Friendly Society required relief; and it was hard on that man, who had done his best to provide for a rainy day, that he could get no assistance from the rates, while his unthrifty neighbour had no difficulty whatever in getting relief. When they considered how enormously the rates were relieved by the operation of those Friendly Societies, they should encourage their extension in every way. But many people did not now join Friendly Societies, because they realised the fact that in times of trouble the thrifty man got no relief. He hoped the Bill would pass into law, as he believed it would be of great advantage to the great Friendly Societies, and would be only an act of justice to those who belonged to them.
    SIR J. PEASEdesired to add only a few words to the general expression of opinion in favour of the Bill. He wished to point out that the circumstances of the County of Durham were somewhat peculiar. The miners were almost all members of one large Provident Society, and the railway men were members of another. The Railway Companies and the mines paid one-half or three-quarters of the rates in some parishes, and yet railway men and miners were practically debarred from getting relief out of the rates. Boards of Guardians recognised that in times of difficulty a little help, in addition to the provision which a man had been able to make for himself, resulted ultimately in relieving the poor-rate, for such help enabled him to get back to work the sooner and thus to support his family. The existing law really imposed a penalty upon thrift, for the man who was not a member of a Friendly Society and had no savings could get a much larger amount of relief than the man who was a member of one of these useful and excellent Societies. Boards of Guardians in Durham, knowing the hardship often inflicted by the existing law, and being unable to grant sufficient relief to a man in consequence of his being a member of a Society, frequently relieved him indirectly by assisting his wife or some other relative. He believed that the Bill would have the effect of saving rather than of increasing the rates, for it would encourage people to join Benefit Societies. It would be perfectly safe to leave the question of relief to the discretion of the Guardians who, in
    726
    country districts—unlike the Guardians of large towns—were, as a rule, quite familiar with the merits of the cases brought before them.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVKE,): The interesting question raised by this measure was considered by the Local Government Board in 1870, when my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was President of the Board. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset had asked why Boards of Guardians were not justified in granting relief in such cases as are contemplated in the present measure without taking into consideration the amounts which the persons concerned may receive from the Societies with which they are connected. My right hon. Friend directed a letter to be written to the hon. Member for the Wells Division, in which I find the following paragraphs. First, as to whether Boards of Guardians were legally entitled to take the course suggested, the letter states:—
    "In answer to these precise questions as to the legal bearings of the case, I am directed to state that, in the opinion of the Board, the Guardians would not be justified, according to the strict law applicable to such cases, in giving to the widow in question any further relief than such an amount as would, together with the sum she was receiving from the Benefit Society, render the amount of her weekly income equal, and no more than equal, to that amount which the Guardians hold to be necessary to relieve the destitution of a person similarly circumstanced, but who has no other means of support."
    The letter further states—
    "In the opinion of the Board, it would not be expedient to administer poor rates, which are levied from all classes down to those on the very verge of destitution, in such a manner as to cause them to be recognised by the working classes of the country as a provision substituted by the law of the land for that which, in the absence of such a system, they would be willing to provide for themselves and their families through the medium of Benefit Societies. The Hoard regard the prosperity and extension of these Benefit Societies as a matter of extreme importance, and would be anxious to encourage their establishment by all legitimate means. But the Board, as at present advised, believe that this encouragement could not safely be given by allowing the poor rates to be treated as a subsidiary fund. The Board cannot shut their eyes to the fact that the only safe basis on which the system of Benefit Societies can rest, under the present system of the legal right to relief, is, that they afford the means of providing, in times of distress or disability a more eligible, respectable, and liberal maintenance than that supplied under the Poor Law, and that they should be still regarded as a

    727
    mode for avoiding the degradation of parish support, rather than as conferring a title by which a claim to such support may be established even beyond the line of actual destitution."
    That was the opinion of the Local Government Board on the question in 1870. That letter was printed and circulated; but it does not appear to have been acted upon generally by Boards of Guardians; for in spite of this declaration of the Local Government Board, it has undoubtedly been the practice in the country to act in opposition to it. I believe I am right in saying that the vast majority of Boards of Guardians, when a case affecting a member of a Friendly Society is brought before them, do not limit their relief to the difference between the amount obtained from the Society and the amount which would be granted ordinarily in the shape of outdoor relief. The strict law is, therefore, not being carried out in most cases; in fact, the number of cases in which it is being carried out is extremely small. I do not find that the Local Government Board have ever taken any steps, beyond writing the letter to which I have referred, to enforce the strict view of the law; nor have auditors ever surcharged any Board of Guardians for payments made to members of Friendly Societies. The question, then, arises whether it would not be wise to bring the law into harmony with what is the general practice. There may be opposite views taken on the subject. On the one side the strict economists may say it would discourage thrift to induce people to rely on the rates for relief in times of distress. But we have had to-day an expression of the opposite view from all parts of the House—namely, that the law as it at present stands really discourages thrift. For my own part, I hold this last view of the case. After careful consideration I have formed the opinion that the proposal contained in this measure may be adopted without any danger, and therefore I shall support the Motion for the Second Reading. But as the question has been under the consideration of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, and is closely connected with the subject of old age pensions, I think it would be well to postpone the Committee stage until after the publication of the Report of the Com mission—assuming, of course, that the Report will be issued within a reasonable time. Considering the fact that the
    728
    Commission is now actually considering the Report, it would be only respectful to the Commission; and it would be expedient to wait, at all events for a short time, until we have the conclusions of the Commission before us.
    MR. HARRY SMITH (Falkirk, &c.)said, he rose to protest against the exclusion of Scotland from the benefits of the Bill. He heartily supported the measure; he thought it was required in Scotland as well as in England; and he hoped that in the Committee stage Scotland would be included within its purview.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he failed to understand why the further stages of the measure were to be postponed until after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission. There was no doubt that the present Rule as to relief in the case of members of Friendly Societies did to a large extent deter people from joining such Societies. He maintained, therefore, that there was a pressing need for this legislation. In that view the President of the Local Government Board said he was in full agreement. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that the Boards of Guardians should have a discretionary power with regard to those applications of relief. The right hon. Gentleman further said that it was the general practice of the Boards of Guardians to act contrary to the opinion of the Local Government Board expressed in their Circular Letter; and that it would be well to bring the general practice into harmony with the law. If that were so, why should they wait for the Report of the Royal Commission? There was no necessity for delay in coming to a determination in such a matter. All the Bill would do would be to leave the matter in the discretion of the Guardians. It did not say that they should not take certain matters into consideration, but that they should not be bound to do so. He did not desire to prejudge any question it might be desirable to postpone until the Royal Commission had reported. Still, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not stand in the way, so that it might be said that, practically speaking, the measure was unopposed.
    MR. CAINEsaid, he was surprised at the position taken up by the President of the Local Government

    729
    Board with regard to the Bill. The reasons he had given for that position were illogical and absurd. Speaking as a member of the Lambeth Board of Guardians, and knowing something of the work of the Clapham and Wandsworth Board, he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that both Boards felt strongly with regard to the Bill. They were very much interested in any proposal to rescind the Circular to which attention had been drawn—a Circular which, on the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman himself, was taken no notice of by Boards of Guardians. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his position, and would not ask the House to wait until the Report of the Royal Commission had been issued, especially as the subject was hardly germane to that under discussion by the Commission at the present time. Not a single word had been said against the principle of the Bill, even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. There was a universal concurrence of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of this reform, and he trusted that the Committee stage of the Bill might be taken at the earliest possible date.
    MR. RANKINsaid, he hoped the suggestion of the last speaker would be carried out, and that there would be no delay in passing the Bill into law. The country owed a debt of gratitude to the Friendly Societies. The number of people in receipt of poor relief in the country had enormously decreased of late years, and he had no hesitation in saying that the greatest factor in that decrease had been the action of the Friendly Societies. It was hard that those who had brought about that state of things should not have some such benefit as the Bill proposed to give them. But he had risen more for the purpose of suggesting that the consideration of this Bill would form an occasion when something should be done towards fulfilling the object that most of them had in view with regard to old age pensions. He agreed that that subject was not altogether connected with the Bill, but he thought the House might engraft on the measure a provision which should enable any person who had made a certain provision for old age to receive a certain amount of outdoor relief. There was nothing the labouring classes, especially in the agricultural districts, dreaded more than the ultimate
    730
    necessity of having to enter the workhouse when past work. If they felt they would be likely to secure the advantages which would be afforded them under the Bill, it would operate as an inducement to them to obtain old age pensions, and if they did that it would greatly relievo the rates of the country. Seeing that the Bill had been received with approval by both sides of the House, and by the representative of the Local Government Board, he trusted that the Bill would pass, and that the promoters would assent to the suggestion he made.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the line the President of the Local Government Board took up would leave them with the Circular of the Local Government Board in existence, the same being ignored by Boards of Guardians, and the House of Commons reading this Bill a second time, thereby approving the conduct of the Guardians in ignoring the Circular. The right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to wait for the Report of the Commission before going into Committee on the Bill, should at least withdraw the Circular. It seemed to him (Mr. Heneage) that the best course to pursue would be to pass the Bill through all its stages as rapidly as possible, to show the Guardians that even if the Circular was not withdrawn it was at least practically superseded by the law. The limitation of the duration of the Act would be a question for Committee.
    MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)said, he wished to add his protest against any delay in carrying the Bill, and to remind the House that there was a measure brought in last Session which would have become law had it not been for waiting until a Report was presented. The Bill would not affect the whole of the Report of the Commission. It would, no doubt, to a certain extent overlap it; but if they laid down a principle that they were never to pass a Bill overlapping a subject which was being inquired into by a Commission or a Committee there would be an end to all legislation.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)said, he begged to express the heartiest concurrence with all the principles of the Bill save one—namely, that it did not extend to Ireland. He trusted that those

    731
    in charge of the measure would agree to extend it to Ireland.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)said, there was nothing in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The Royal Commission would be glad to have this point, or any other point, determined for them by the House. If the House this afternoon came to a decision to read the Bill asecond time-—as he hoped it would—the Royal Commission would have a clear lead, and would be relieved from any doubt or difficulty they might entertain in preparing their Report on that point.
    MR. J. LEIGHsaid, that a large portion of his constituents in Stockport were interested in Friendly Societies, than which he did not think there was any better or stronger agency for the encouragement of thrift, and for the general benefit of the town itself. He, therefore, hoped the President of the Local Government Board would afford them the luxury of passing this Bill into law.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid that, after the strong expression of opinion which had been given, he would undertake that if he found that the Royal Commission did not report within a short time before the end of the Session, then he would endeavour to give facilities for making progress with the Bill. But, inasmuch as the Commission was now considering its Report, and was investigating this very subject, he thought it only respectful to that body to wait a short time in order to see the Report issued.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the light hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) did not seem to see that the Royal Commission could not record any opinion on this point without either approving of the principle of this Bill or going beyond the scope of their Commission. They might affirm that the present state of the law as to outdoor relief discouraged persons from entering Friendly Societies, and therefore was a hindrance to the creation of old age pensions. In that case they would be endorsing the principle of this Bill. If they did not think this particular law was such a discouragement or hindrance, what occasion would they have to allude to it at all, seeing that it dealt with sick pay and not pensions?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,)said, that the Government distinctly sympathised with the object of the Bill, and hoped that it would become law during the present Session. Hon. Members said that there was no necessity to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission; but whenever any step was proposed to be taken affecting labour it was said, "Wait for the Report of the Labour Commission." In the present instance the President of the Local Government Board made a very reasonable proposition. He proposed that they should wait for the Report, but that if it did not seem likely that it would be presented in time for legislation steps would be taken to assure the progress of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Webster) would admit that that was a reasonable proposition.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he supposed the hon. and learned Member did not desire more than that the Bill should go through this Session.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid that, as the House was unanimously in favour of the Bill, he failed to see the necessity of waiting for a lead from the Commission.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that at any rate the Bill would now be read a second time, and between now and the next stage the Government would be able to communicate with the Royal Commission and consider the position.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that he was quite pleased at the unanimous support the Bill had received. While agreeing with the principles of the Bill he regretted that they had not been carried a little further. He did not wish to hamper the measure, but he would point out that there were other cases where the Guardians should have a discretionary power given them to make outdoor relief: such, for example, as that of an old soldier whose pension was insufficient to keep him in food and lodging, and who was therefore compelled to seek refuge in the workhouse. If money had been earned by the poor by thrift or good service it should not be a bar to their receiving assistance. At any rate, the Guardians should have a discretionary power in the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 21st May.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.—(No. 21.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CODDINGTONsaid, he regretted that the exigencies of the ballot should have placed this important Bill in his hands. The measure had already received the approval of the House on many occasions by very large majorities. In 1890 the Second Reading was carried by a majority of 152, in 1891 it was agreed to without a Division, in 1892 it was carried by a majority of 110, and last year by a majority of 153. The Bill had the support of nearly all the Assessment Committees in England; of, he believed, the representatives of all the Trade Unions; of the textile manufacturers; of the engineering trades; and, in fact, of everybody who was interested in the various trades of the country. The system of rating buildings, boilers, and mill-gearing still prevailed in Lancashire, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in the Leicester and Nottingham districts, and in many other districts. It was also considered a matter of public policy in the City of London that machinery should not be rated, while in the Neighbouring borough of West Ham even a movable crane was rated, although the engine which drew the crane was not. While this system of rating only buildings and mill-gearing and engines existed in a large part of England, still there was a percentage of towns where the new system prevailed, and, unfortunately, that percentage was increasing. This very year the town of Wolverhampton had altered its system of rating, and the Assessment Committee had decided, against the wishes of all the owners of works, and against the Chamber of Commerce of that town, to rate machinery. In one instance in Wolverhampton the alteration in the assessment on works where 900 men, women, and children were employed had been increased from 10s. 3d. per head to 21s. 6d. Anyone connected with trade must know that such an increase in the assessment must almost kill that trade in that town. He felt, therefore, that, if the Assessment Committee could not see their way to make some change, they would do very great injury to the town.
    734
    In Scotland no such rating existed, and, as a consequence, certain industries had already begun to migrate from England to that country. A very important deputation had waited upon the Secretary of State for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler), when he was President of the Local Government Board, in relation to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had made a very able speech on that occasion. He had said in the course of his remarks—
    "Now. I understand the position of the case to be this: that up to the decision which was given in the Chard case, and in the Tyne Boiler case…there was no difference of opinion prevailing among the Assessment Committees throughout the Kingdom. It was not a question as to whether this property should be exempt or not; in no case was it taxed and made liable to rates…Then I understood the next step was that by, no doubt, an accurate interpretation of the law—it would not become me to imply anything to the contrary—no doubt by an accurate interpretation of the law the Judges decided that a class of property which had never been rated was to be rated for the future, and so far from your asking—at least, so far from that class of property now asking—Parliament to exempt it from rates, it rather asks that the law which was generally understood to be the law should continue to be the law; or—there is another side to it—or that if Parliament in its wisdom should see fit that a property never hitherto rated is to be made subject to rates, that shall be done by Parliament. and not by the Judges. Well, gentlemen, I need hardly say that whatever view I may take of this question of rating, in that view I most cordially concur: it is the business of Parliament to impose taxes upon the Queen's subjects, and through their Representatives alone ought any class of the community to be subjected to any taxation whatever. Therefore, I think we see pretty clearly what the state of things now is. Then I understand from a gentleman who spoke to me on behalf of the Unions that at present only a small number of Unions have adopted this new view of the law. Therefore, the state of things is this—that we have chaos throughout the whole of the Assessment Committees of this Kingdom. The law is said to be, and is, one way; the practice is the other; and neither those who are claiming in favour of exemption, nor those who entertain a contrary opinion, know what will be done in any specific Union; and it is a matter of contest in each Union, now tending to increase year by year, as to whether property of a certain description or not is to be subject to rates or not."
    That was their position. They contended that the law should be made distinct. If machinery was to be rated, let it be done by Act of Parliament and not by the decision of Judges alone. He believed that many Members from agricultural districts were opposed to this Bill. He would like to point out to them that it was an absolute advantage

    735
    that there should be as many large works in a town as possible, not only for the employment of the population, but also to relieve the rates. Take the case of Oldham. In Oldham, in proportion to its population, there were more large works than in any other town, he believed, in the United Kingdom. There were large machine works, large engineering works, and an enormous number of textile mills, and the consequence was that the rates of the town were lower almost than any other town in England. Last year the rates of Oldham, including the poor, the school, and the borough rates, were only 3s. 7d. in the £1, and this year they were only 4s. 1d. in the £1. He did not know another manufacturing town in so happy a position, and he admitted the fact that these mills and works were rated on the principle which they advocated, and contributed an enormous sum of money to the rates of the town, without incurring a similar expense to the town itself. Agricultural Members instead of opposing ought to support the Bill. Many industries in this country might be removed from the crowded towns, where rents were dear, to the country districts. If small industries were so removed they would contribute to the rates of the districts without taking from them money needed for the local burdens. If machinery, however, were placed within the powers of Assessment Committees such a change as that could not be expected to take place, and if Assessment Committees throughout the country were to be governed by the principle adopted in some parts of England—for instance, in Wolverhampton—almost the whole of the textile and engineering trades would leave the country. He feared whatever he might say would not alter the views of some hon. Members on this question; but he could assure them that if he thought the Bill would injure any portion of the community, if he did not believe it would be of great advantage to the country, he should not be moving the Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Mr. Coddington.)
    SIR A. HICKMANsaid, he most heartily supported the Second Reading. In our large towns every class of ratepayers was benefited
    736
    by the extension of machinery. To workmen employment was thus afforded; shopkeepers benefited by the custom of the workmen. Benefit was also derived by the employers themselves, and the same might be said of all other classes. He maintained that any policy which tended to discourage the extension of machinery was for all classes mischievous in its effects.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, hon. Members could not expect to exempt one man from the payment of rates without making someone else pay them. One class of people could not be relieved without at the same time putting the burden on the shoulders of others. If this Bill were passed the House would save a single manufacturer in one town alone, Wolverhampton, no less than £500 a year. A Bill seeking to make such extraordinary changes in the incidence of taxation was, he should have thought, of sufficient importance to be either taken up or strongly opposed by the Government, instead of being allowed to pass through as a private Members Bill, without either support or opposition. These assessments on machinery, his hon. Friend had said, were levied under Judge-made law. If so, why not appeal against them? But the Law of Rating had existed time out of mind. It had never been repealed, and the House of Lords had declared what the law was on the subject. Those decisions of the Judges were on the principle of the old Act, 42 Eliz., and it was by no means newly-made law. The fact that some of our Rating Authorities evaded the law, forgot it, or did not know how to apply it, was no reason for supposing this was recent law. It was nothing of the kind. He would point out, however, that all Rating Authorities had not neglected their duty in this respect. Birmingham had long ago settled this question in a way which satisfied everyone. The application of the law was no doubt very difficult: it was not easy to decide what was the value of a hereditament. Only a very rough estimate could be made. But the difficulty had been solved at Birmingham and also at West Ham, where all machinery was rated. His hon. Friend's argument was that if the law of rating were carried out machinery and capital would be driven away, and the departing machinists and capitalists would carry

    737
    everything and everybody else in their train. Such a misfortune had not happened in the towns where the law was carried out, and their industries were still going on. In every agricultural district where machinery was relieved from rating the rich capitalist would be relieved of a burden which the law placed upon him at the expense of the farmers and labourers. This was a rich man's proposal brought forward by the machinists of the country and their friends, who wanted to relieve themselves of a legal burden. Hon. Members on the opposite side did not deny that land was greatly over-taxed in proportion to personalty. Land was very heavily rated, and the farmer in the country was much more hardly treated than the capitalist in the town, who only paid upon house property. When the Government was engaged in placing heavier burdens of taxation on land, the moment was not opportune to come forward with a scheme for the exemption of machinery in towns from taxation under the ordinary law of the laud.
    MR. WHITELEYsaid, the great principle embodied in the Bill, and for which its supporters contended, was that it was distinctly wrong that machinery should be taxed in the way advocated. It was wrong in principle, and in practice harmful and injurious alike to the owners of machinery, the industrial community, and the country at large. He was surprised at the argument of his hon. Friend, though continually heard indeed in that House—the cry of "Land, land," nothing but "land." The Government had to levy taxation on the country, and large sums were required for naval defence. Those sums were levied alike on realty and personalty. What would they think if the owners of machinery and other personal property were to get up in that House and say, "We will not support your proposals, because we think it is advisable that taxes should be levied all round alike"? No injury whatever would be done by the passing of this Bill. It would not touch the lauded estates of the country. No greater misfortune or injury could be inflicted on any community than to prosecute a policy which would have the ultimate effect of hampering our large manufacturing industries and dislocating the business of the country by this interference with the machinery in our mills.
    738
    Such a policy was simply "killing the goose that laid the golden eggs." As had been pointed out by the Secretary for India, the Manchester trade was gradually transferring itself to another part of the world; and the same thing was seen in other directions. The effects were seen in the great machine shops of the country, particularly in Lancashire, where, to a large extent, they were working one-fourth time. All our machinery was going abroad, and our policy should be to relieve the industries of the country as far as possible, which gave employment to our workpeople and relieved the rates throughout the country.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, there ought to be some definition of the law and, at any rate, some uniformity of practice in rating. Different methods of rating prevailed throughout the Kingdom, and, therefore, a change in the law would be welcome. He opposed the Bill because, though its promoters desired to put the matter back into the position in which it stood before the decision in the celebrated Chard case, the Bill distinctly made a change which would act adversely in certain places in the Kingdom. In Birmingham the Assessing Authorities had, it was admitted, gone beyond the motive power and the shafting; and recent decisions had justified that course in rating machinery. Matters had been included which would be excluded if this Bill became law. The question was what had been the practical offect of that course upon the assessment? Those in charge of the assessment in Birmingham had informed him that if the Bill passed in its present shape the assessment would be reduced by £20,000 to £25,000—which the promoters of the Bill themselves would not desire. That was to say, whereas the authorities of Birmingham had assessed the motive power and shafting and something beyond at 50s. per nominal horsepower, that amount would have to be reduced by the value of the assessment beyond the shafting. That would make a difference in the annual rating of between £7,000 and £8,000, which was practically a 1d. rate to be levied on other classes of property. To whose shoulders would that burden be transferred? That raised the whole question. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated

    739
    that the more machinery was used the greater number of persons would be employed; but he would make precisely the contrary assertion. Anyone acquainted with commerce and manufactures would know many instances where the introduction of machinery had driven numbers of workmen out of employment. This Bill would put the rating on the shoulders of the very people thrown out of employment. If the rating value of Birmingham were reduced £8,000 a year, who would have to pay it? Why, the workmen of Birmingham and no one else. It was proposed to place a burden now levied upon manufacturers in the shape of annual rent-charges on the shoulders of the working classes. The small houses in Birmingham constituted about 95 per cent. of the occupation holdings; and if the manufacturers were to be relieved at the expense of the householders, the owners of the houses in which the working classes lived would know how to take care of themselves. If it were contended, as a principle of political economy, that the sources of industry ought not to be taxed, why was it proposed by the Bill to allow the rating still to operate upon motive power and shafting? If there was anything in that argument about not taxing the sources of industry, he would go further and ask what right had they to tax the buildings used for production or the fixed plant employed? He objected to the Bill on another ground—of principle. He was strongly in favour of the taxation of personalty. The present Government had very rightly committed Themselves in that direction to a large extent. One class of personalty ought not to be taxed while another went free, and this Bill was in the wrong direction, inasmuch as it was designed to avoid the rating of certain personalty. The sooner some Government undertook a general rating of personalty the better. The late Government took a considerable step in that direction by applying the Death Duty in relief of local taxation. This Bill as drawn went a long way towards denying a useful principle which had been admitted to some extent. He had put down an Amendment for Committee on a former occasion which would at any rate preserve the state of things now existing in Birmingham, and prevent any reduction of assessment by the operation of the Bill. But that was
    740
    scarcely a satisfactory way out of the difficulty. He thought the House would do well to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order to obtain evidence which would enable the House to arrive at a just and equitable decision in the matter. Evidence would be obtained from Birmingham and other places where the rating had gone beyond the shafting, showing precisely the principle there adopted. A Bill could thou be formulated upon the subject which would be satisfactory to all who took an interest in this important question.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was surprised at the attitude of the hon. Gentleman, since not only had the Bill been referred to a Select Committee, but that Committee had discussed very fully the whole Birmingham custom. If the new system of rating was carried into effect, the tendency would be to drive manufacturers from England to Scot-laud, where a different law prevailed. The effect of rating machinery would not be to substitute manual labour for machinery, but to drive our industries to other countries. No part of the country was more interested in the Bill than the agricultural districts. Their great grievance at present was that they could not get markets for their produce; and if they could establish little centres of industry in their midst, they would at once obtain these markets.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)said, he proposed, on behalf of the Government, to take the course adopted in former years both by the Secretary for India and by Mr. Ritchie, and to leave this matter to the judgment of the House But he had no hesitation in expressing his own opinion on the subject. Until a few years ago it was the almost universal practice of Assessment Committees throughout the country not to rate machinery. The matter was brought before the Judges, and they gave their decision. It would not be right to say they laid down any new law; on the contrary, they merely affirmed the old law, which had been to a large extent lost sight of. But, to all intents and purposes, it was new law as regarded the greater part of the country, and if it had been acted upon a great change would have taken place in the practice of the majority of the Assessment Committees.

    741
    The Assessment Committees had continued their former practice. In 1887 a Select Committee heard evidence on the question, and recommended that a comprehensive measure should be brought in dealing with the whole subject of rating, and that in the meantime Assessment Committees should continue to exempt machinery from rating. In other words, they recommended that these Committees should not conform to the law of the land. That was a very serious position. Either the practice ought to be brought into conformity with the law, or the law ought to be brought into conformity with the practice. He believed the wiser course would be to bring the law into conformity with the practice, seeing that 388 Assessment Committees carried out the practice, and only 10 or 12 conformed to the law. He would not advise that course if he thought the result would be to throw fresh burdens on land but that would not be the case, because in the rural districts machinery was not now subject to rating. It was extremely important, in the interests of the rural districts, that every inducement should be given to manufacturers to establish factories there; and, on the whole, he thought that it would be wise for the House to re-affirm its decisions on this subject.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time. It was, however, quite a mistake to suppose that Lord Esher had laid down any new law on this subject. The law was laid down in the same direction more than 50 years ago. The subject was, undoubtedly, a difficult one. On the one hand, no one would wish to rate sewing machines, which were chattels in the ordinary sense of the term, but it was ridiculous to attempt to exempt heavy machinery, which was not intended to be movable, but to pass from tenant to tenant. He recollected that some 20 years ago he was engaged in a case in which the Local Authorities at Newcastle sought to rate a steam hammer striking a blow of some 300 or 100 tons, which was part of the machinery at Sir W. Armstrong's works, and that the rate was resisted on the ground that it was not affixed to the freehold, it being bedded on a mass of metal weighing 400 or 500 tons which had been laid upon the earth. It was absurd to describe such a machine as movable, and in
    742
    his opinion it ought to be rated. Then there was the case of the great sheer-legs, some 120 feet in height, that were used in the shipbuilding yards, which were in no sense affixed to the freehold, but which were never intended to be removed from their position in the shipbuilding yard, but were intended to pass from tenant to tenant. Surely such machinery as that ought not to be exempted from rating on the ground that it was movable. He thought that the measure should be referred to a competent Committee, which should be empowered to lay down some definition which should clearly show what machinery should and what should not be liable to be rated. If all machinery were to be exempted from rating very much heavier burdens would be thrown upon houses and land than was the case at present. He did not care whether the Bill was referred to a Select or to a Grand Committee, as long as an adequate inquiry into the subject was had and a clear definition of rateable machinery was laid down.
    Mr. CODDINGTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. S. EVANSdescribed the measure as being a manufacturers Bill, which was brought in for the purpose of enabling them to avoid paying the fair contribution which they ought to make to the local rates. The Bid had been changed a little since last year, collieries, which were previously exempted, being now included; but it was idle for the promoters to say that if the Bill passed a greater burden would not be thrown upon the workmen. Machinery never had been rated, and the Courts had decided that no machinery was assessed. He protested against the Bill being described as a Bill for the rating of machinery; it was a Bill to exempt certain parts of premises which contained machinery, and unless the House were prepared to adopt that principle it ought not to read the measure a second time.
    Sat J. JOICEYsaid, that this Bill was intended to alter the law, and great injustice would be done to the district he represented if the Bill passed. He regretted the absence

    743
    of his hon. Friends, whose constituencies were deeply interested in this measure. This was a question that ought to be dealt with not by a Private Bill, but by the Government. The question had been considered by a Select Committee, who had found that it bristled with difficulties. It would therefore be extremely unwise for the House to pass this measure that day. He himself represented a constituency consisting largely of working men. He believed the rateable value was about £270,000, and to give the House some idea of the population he might state that £77,000? of that value was made up of tenemented property. If this Bill passed, he was told on the best authority—the authority of men who had gone into the question very carefully—that it would increase the rates from 6d. to 11d. in the £1, and that increase would undoubtedly fall upon the working classes in the town. He maintained that if the Bill passed it would be the large Companies like the Northern Eastern Company and John Abbot and Company, and others in the town of Gateshead, that would get relief, but it would be at the expense of their workmen, and he failed to see how an industry could be seriously affected either for advantage or disadvantage by taking the rate off the manufactory and putting it upon the men who were working the manufactory. In Gateshead they had adopted the Public Libraries Act, the rate for it at present being 1d. in the £1. The whole of that rate was required to maintain the library there. One-third went to pay off the money borrowed to erect the library, one-third was expended on salaries, and one-third upon literature. If this Bill passed, it would take a very considerable sum from the library which was now available for that purpose, and the only way to meet the loss would be by increasing the rateable value of the workmen's houses, otherwise they would not be able to buy the necessary books for their library. The Mover of this Bill had stated that the working classes were practically unanimous in favour of the Bill. That was not the case in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland. There the working classes were averse to this Bill, and the united coal trade in the North of England had petitioned against it again and again. He thought it would be a great shame if Gateshead, which had observed the law
    744
    with respect to rating, were punished because in other districts the law had been broken. Long before the Chard decision the system in his district had been the same as at present. Their assessors had understood the law, and had assessed property accordingly, and on the strength of their assessment they had raised £200,000 under the Public Loans Act, and they should not be punished now simply because other districts had not taken the right view of the law. Machinery itself was not rated, but its existence was taken into consideration in the valuation of the building. It would be most unjust if this Bill passed, because it would put places like Gateshead, Sunderland, and Jarrow in a very great difficulty. It was perfectly plain, from the clear definition of what the law was given by the late Attorney General, that this Bill proceeded to alter the law, and that the only cause for this proposal was difference in practice among the Assessing Authorities. They in the North of England had obseryed the law. It was in other districts that the law had not been observed. He had heard it stated that machinery on farms was not rated. Well, he held a great many farms on which there was machinery, and he knew that when these farms were let the machinery and the facilities created by the existence of the machinery were taken into consideration in the rating, and on that ground he held that agricultural machinery was rated. He hoped that before the House came to a Division Members would take into their serious consideration all that had passed in this Debate, and if they did so he felt sure that they would not readily interfere with the present arrangement.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYreferred to the case of a small town with a circle of purely agricultural laud round it. In that small town was a certain amount of machinery which was available for rating purposes; and if this Bill passed that portion of the rates would be lost, with the result that the rates in the agricultural area would be increased. He hoped that the fact that the Bill might put an additional burden on the agricultural interest would have some effect with hon. Gentlemen in coming to a decision on this Bill.
    MR. MATHERsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading. He thought that after discussion in four different years and four large Divisions it would be highly desirable that the Bill should be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade, where the matter could be discussed in the light of day.
    MR. EVERETTsubmitted that this Bill did not stand in the same position as the Bills of previous years, for the House had now under discussion a Budget which would put realty and personalty on the same footing so far as it was possible to do so, and this Bill sought to exempt from rating a certain section of personal property. He, therefore, proposed to vote against it.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: If this Bill should be read a second time, Mr. Speaker, will it be competent to move that it be referred to a Committee?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is perfectly competent for any hon. Gentleman to make a Motion of that kind.
    MR. AMBROSEsaid, no doubt, in point of law, machinery was assessable when affixed to a freehold: but the effect of decisions in the Courts had been to make machinery, such as looms standing by their own weight, liable to rating. This Bill would not prevent the rating of machinery belonging to the landlord of the premises or the owner of the freehold.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 120.—(Division List, No. 42.)
    Bill read a second time.
    MR. CODDINGTON: I beg to move "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade."—(Mr. Coddington.)
    MR. S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Gentleman move that without notice?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes; it is competent to the hon. Member to move it.
    MR. S. EVANS: Then I object.
    It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 71.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. Cross.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked for an explanation of the measure.
    MR. A. CROSSsaid, the object of the Bill was to do away with a grievance largely felt among the smaller class of occupiers in Scotland. It was the practice in the month of February to settle the question of the occupancy of a house for one year from the following Whitsuntide. Many circumstances might arise which might make it undesirable that a small tenant should be saddled with a house for so long a period, and the object of the Bill was to amend the law in this respect. Reasonable conditions were introduced for the protection of all parties. The landlord was entitled under the Bill to obtain possession of his property in the event of the rent not being paid, and there was a clause providing that the rates should be compounded for. The operation of the Bill was limited to burghs, and to houses of under £15 a year in burghs. The Bill had been considered by working-class Societies and Trades Unions, and he believed that all the Scotch Members were in receipt of communications on the subject.
    MR. W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: As this seems rather a complicated Bill, I must object to the Second Reading.
    MR. A. CROSS: I hope the hon. Member will allow the Bill to proceed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that the Mover of the Bill is a Unionist.
    MR. W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday, 21st May.

  STEAM TRAWLERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 200.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CROMBIE, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill,

    747
    said, it was a non-controversial measure and was backed by one Representative of each Party. It proposed that the master of a steam trawler must have a certificate of competency, which might be suspended if he broke the law.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Mr. Crombie.)
    An hon. MEMBER: What does the Board of Trade say?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): This Bill has been brought before the Board of Trade, and I have no reason to know that they object to it. I asked my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) whether any objection was to be taken to it, and he was not aware of any.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) he must object to the Second Reading.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BURT,): The Board of Trade does not object to the Second Reading of the Bill, but will make Amendments in Committee.
    An hon. MEMBER: I object.
    MR. RENSHAWexpressed a hope that the objection would be withdrawn.
    MR TOMLINSONsaid, the Bill might injuriously affect English or Irish trawlers, and he must therefore object to it.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 30th May.

  POLICE (SLAUGHTER OF INJURED ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 208.)

    SECOND EEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BANBURYmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said would simply empower a police constable, where he found a horse seriously injured in the street, to obtain a veterinary certificate and to have the animal slaughtered on the spot.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—{Mr. Banbury,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed for Monday, 21st May.

  HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 207.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday, 21st May.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 171.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  COMMONS REGULATION' PROVISION AX ORDER (LUTON) BILE.
  On Motion of Mr. H. Gardner. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Board of Agriculture relating to the Regulation of certain Commons in the Borough of Luton, in the County of Bedford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. Gardner and Sir J. T. Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 223.]

  IMPORTATION OF PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Howard Vincent, Bill to prevent the Importation into Great Britain and Ireland of Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by Foreign Prison Labour, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Howard Vincent, the Marquess of Carmarthen, Mr. Keir-Hardie. Sir Frederick Seager Hunt, Mr. Labou-chere, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Major Rasch, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Boulnois. Mr. Conybeare, and Mr. Field.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 224.]

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Field, Bill for the marking of frozen Foreign and Colonial Meat in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Horace Plunkett, and Mr. M'Gilligan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 225.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5 (ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE) (TRALEE AND DINGLE LIGHT RAILWAY).
  Copy presented,—of Estimate of the Amount required in the year ending 31st March 1895 as a Grant in Aid of Expenses caused by an accident on the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway, Class I. Vote 16 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 112.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.