Sitting of 10 May 1900

ERRORS IN THE "VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS."
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an error in the Record of Proceedings circulated among the Members of the House yesterday? In the division on 8th May in reference to company directors I find that there has been an error of calculation. There were only eighty-one votes recorded as against the. motion, whereas eighty-two are put down in the list as having voted. There is another and even worse error. An hon. Member was put down as voting with the noes who was not present and has not been present since the session opened— Mr. James Tuite, the Member for Westmeath. I am myself at some fault in the matter, as I was one of the tellers; but the hon. Member for Partick was the

1217
other teller, and to him I left the responsibility of counting, feeling that he would be able to count accurately as he was a Senior Wrangler. I certainly did not see Mr. Tuite, and my hon. friend could only have seen him with the eye of faith. I saw him with no eye at all. I ask that the Government majority be reduced from eleven to nine. This is of some importance, as I shall be able to show in a very few days.
MR. SPEAKER: I see that the name of the hon. Member for Westmeath does appear as voting, and I must assume for the present that it correctly appears, but inquiry shall be made.; the clerks in the Lobby may have taken down his name by mistake for that of another Member. But I must take it that the tellers have given the right number, unless they agree that there has been a mistake.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will communicate with my hon. friend the Senior Wrangler.
AN HON. MEMBER: Second Wrangler.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): I understand that this Bill is now to be considered, and I wish to ask for some explanation with regard to the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee. I have no personal knowledge as to the circumstances of the Bradford Bill, and I should not have interfered in this matter if it had not been for the fact that this was the first Bill containing the tuberculosis clauses which was considered this session by the Police and Sanitary Committee. I shall not move the Amendment which stands in my name ["That the Bill be considered this day six months'], because if it were carried it would be fatal to the Bill. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Police and Sanitary Committee. That Report points out that the Bill contains certain provisions dealing with the supply of milk. The promoters of the Bill—the Bradford Corporation—agreed with the West
  1218
  Riding of Yorkshire County Council that the Leeds clauses should be embodied in the Bill. With that everyone was satisfied: but, to the surprise of the West Riding County Council, the Police and Sanitary Committee have, against the wishes of the Bradford Corporation, as well as of the promoters of the Bill, objected to the Leeds clauses being inserted. On what ground have they done so? They say it is because of a conference between representatives of the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Municipal Corporations Association. I cannot help thinking that a great deal too much has been made of that conference. So far as the Government Departments are concerned, we need not trouble our heads very much about them, but, as regards the other two bodies, although they may be important organisations, I do not think they can be said to represent in every aspect the interests of agriculturists or of local government in the provinces. I am rather surprised that my noble friend the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, who is a prominent member of the County Councils Association, should attach so much weight to the conference, seeing that that association was not there represented; and that, consequently, its views on the matter are apparently unknown. Surely such an association ought to have been invited to take part in a conference which dealt with the question of interference in county and district council administration by urban district authorities. Further than that, the conference was by no means unanimous, and some of its recommendations were only carried by a small majority. I think the Police and Sanitary Committee could not have been aware that the conference did not really represent the views of the county councils. Speaking for my own county, I know we strongly object to the decision come to by the Local Government Board in this matter. Is it not the same old story of the Local Government Board in London trying to ride rough-shod over localities? Another point which the Police and Sanitary Committee do not appear to have had sufficiently before them relates to the intervention of justices. I was under the impression that the justices who were to be empowered to sign the order should be justices acting in the Petty Sessional Division. But that,

  1219
  apparently, is not the case, for the words of the Bill are "Justices having jurisdiction in the place." That is a very different matter, for we know that, generally speaking, county justices have jurisdiction over a whole county, and are not confined to any particular area. I would ask that the justices who deal with these matters should be justices usually acting in the Petty Sessional Division, especially as there is to be no right of appeal. One of the strongest arguments that has been advanced has been based on the unfairness of the Local Government Board in insisting on the Leeds clauses, under which, as has been pointed out, the corporation are the prosecutor, judge, and jury in their own case, without any appeal whatever on the part of the locality or the farmers interested in the matter. I hope we shall have some explanation from my noble friend the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee as to why they have adopted this course in opposition to the views of the Bradford Corporation and of the West Riding County Council.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Perhaps it would be as well if I wore at once to try and meet the courteous appeal made by my hon. friend the Member for South Somerset in regard to this matter. Undoubtedly this is an important question of policy which affects the sale of milk, the conditions of dairies, and the public health. The matter is, therefore, one of great importance to the whole community. But the fundamental error which underlies the argument of my hon. friend—and, knowing the interest he takes in this matter, I fully admit that there is something to be said from his point of view— the fundamental error appears to me to be his idea that there is an incompatibility or opposition of interest in this matter between town and country. I submit that this question is one in which the interests of town and country are absolutely identical, because disease, whether transmitted through milk or in any other way, is not stopped, by boundaries. The bacillus in milk crosses into the urban district and transmits the disease with perfect impartiality to all persons, whether they are dwellers in town or in country. Now the clauses under consideration are intended to enable an urban authority within whose boundaries milk from an
  1220
  outside dairy is distributed to visit that dairy with a view to preventing a condition of things arising which is likely to cause disease to exist, say, through the daily being in. an unwholesome condition, or through the milk being produced under conditions dangerous to the public health. This is by no means a theoretical question, because in the very part of the world from which my hon. friend comes there was, in the City of Bristol, a great and terrible outbreak of disease, through which many valuable lives were lost, and as to which the medical officer of the city said there was no doubt whatever that the infection had been brought in from outside dairies. Now, what has been the policy pursued in this case? We have adopted the rule laid down by a most able conference of representatives of the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Association of Municipal Corporations, at which these model clauses were agreed upon. As a result the clauses wore inserted in Bills which at that time were before the House. But when one of those Bills went elsewhere an alteration was made in the clause by which, when the officers of an urban body wanted to proceed outside their limits, they were called upon to procure the fiat of two justices sitting in petty sessions, instead of one only. And further than that, before any stops could be taken the justices had to be satisfied that the local authority of the district had not already dealt with the case of alleged infection, or had been negligent in exercising their powers when requested by the corporation to do so. I do not think I need take up the time of the House with elaborate arguments. The broad objection to the Leeds clauses was this—that they would cause very great delay in a matter in which expedition was absolutely essential. Does anybody think that disease is going to stand still while elaborate formalities are being gone through in petty sessions, or while an official is riding round the countryside in order to find two justices to sit in petty sessions? Surely it would be much better to have but one justice, sitting in the manner prescribed in the model clauses, to be satisfied that urgency was necessary, and that the officers of the corporation were justified in taking proceedings against any particular dairy or farm. It was felt that if the fiat had to be obtained

  1221
  from two justices sitting in petty sessions the provisions of the clauses would be reduced to a nullity and a farce. There was the further difficulty that if it was to be necessary to satisfy the justices that the local authorities of the rural district had not already dealt with the case, or, having power to deal with it, and having been requested by the corporation to do so, had refused to take action, such a course would involve elaborate evidence and arguments, and a most dangerous condition of things would arise, because meanwhile the milk from the suspected dairy would be distributed over the whole district, spreading the disease which it was desired to stamp out. The hon. Member spoke of the Local Government Board riding roughshod over local authorities, but I am the last person who would desire to see the county authorities trampled under foot. My hon. friend says that the County Councils Association are opposed to our policy. I deny that in toto. I have attended the two last meetings of the executive committee of that association, and I am not aware of their opposition.
  MR. STRACHEY: I did not say the County Councils Association. I said the county councils who had had the matter brought before thorn were opposed to it, and the Somerset County Council, I may add, have asked the County Councils Association to take the matter up.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I understood my hon. friend to say that the County Councils Association as a body were likely to take some steps in opposition. But I do not think that that is the case. I do not find that there is any strong feeling in regard to the matter. At first there was a little feeling that the county councils were being lightly passed over; but when the matter was put before the public it was at once realised that if anything was to be done in this direction, it must be done quickly or not at all. In regard to this particular matter, surely if the West Riding County Council had desired to appear they would have had a locus standi before the Committee.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The West Hiding County Council intended to appear, but they did not do so because they came to an
  1222
  arrangement with the Bradford Corporation. That arrangement the Committee has set aside without reference to either of the two parties.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We considered this matter first on the Liverpool Bill, and when we found that the same question arose in connection with several other Bills we decided, with the consent of all the parties, to take the full discussion of the matter on the Bradford Bill. We gave notice that we intended to insert these clauses in the other Bills, and I am inclined to think that if there had been any strong feeling on the subject we should have heard from the West Riding County Council more fully than we did, because it was a matter of public knowledge that we were taking this course. During the discussion of the Bradford Clauses counsel for Liverpool obtained permission to inform us that he was enabled to state, on behalf of the Liverpool Corporation, that that body had come to a full agreement with the Lancashire County Council, which entirely accepted the model clauses. The House will, I think, see that the support of the Lancashire County Council was a very important point, because it is one of the largest county councils in the whole country. To-day we have had before us the Devonshire County Council, which has not said one word against the model clauses, and they have been inserted in the Devonshire Bill with the full knowledge of that county council. Devonshire is a most important agricultural community, and you may be quite sure that if there had been any feeling in Devonshire, or in that part of it which fringes a long line of towns on the north coast, we should have heard of it to-day. I may go a step further. Even if the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had appeared before us, when we had in view the fact that in every Bill passed in this House these clauses had been inserted; that it was owing to an alteration made elsewhere that what are known as the Leeds clauses were accepted; and that it was really owing to the fact that Bradford had to submit to the insertion of those clauses in order to get their Bill through; when we further found that Liverpool and the Lancashire County Council had been able to agree, and that Devonshire did not object; and when we realised the strength of the argument that delay was fatal in

  1223
  dealing with the questions which form the subject matter of these clauses; I say that, taking into consideration all those facts, it will be admitted we were fully justified, after going into the case—as we did most carefully—in inserting these model clauses in the Bradford Bill and in announcing our determination to insert in all Bills that come before us uniform clauses which we believe will conduce to the maintenance of the public health. I may also remind the House that the Police and Sanitary Committee was appointed very largely in order to obtain uniformity in all these matters, and that if we had not insisted on inserting these model clauses we should, instead of securing uniformity, have added to the confusion of our existing local legislation.
  MR. FLOWER: I understand the hon. Member for South Somerset does not intend to press the motion which stands in his name, and certainly it must be obvious that to ask the House to reject a Bill so wide in its scope as the Bradford Bill, which deals with the acquisition of gas and tramway properties, upon a side issue relating to a matter comparatively small, would hardly commend itself to hon. Members. If in any particular the Bill requires amendment, it can with ease be done in another place. I only rise to explain the attitude of the Bradford Corporation with regard to these clauses dealing with milk. It is quite true that the Bradford Corporation were prepared to accept, in the Bill, clauses similar to those that were inserted elsewhere last year. The Corporation did not approve of those clauses, but, with the view of diminishing the opposition which might be offered to progress of the Bill, they were willing to leave the matter to the consideration of the Police and Sanitary Committee, and to abide by any decision at which it might arrive. But it would not be correct to assume, as I think the hon. Member has assumed, that the Corporation of Bradford either welcomed or desired the introduction of these clauses into their Bill. On the contrary, I have the authority of the corporation to state that they are entirely satisfied with the model clauses which have obtained the approbation of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Agriculture, as well as of all municipal corporations which are con-
  1224
  cerned in the promotion of private Bills. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the hon. Member for South Somerset should seek to belittle the authority of the two Government Departments in dealing with these matters. The attitude of the Bradford Corporation is one which, I think, has been honourably and faithfully maintained. They were ready to abide by the decision of the Police and Sanitary Committee, and they most certainly welcome the decision at which that Committee has arrived—a decision which is, I believe, in the best interests of the health of their borough. I hope the hon. Member will be content with the explanation given to him, and that there will be no further attempt to over-ride the decision of the Committee which has carefully considered this matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): I ask the House to support the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee on two grounds. First, because last session, after a great deal of controversy between two public Departments and representative bodies, these model clauses were agreed to. This is a matter which vitally affects the public health, and, therefore, it is desirable, as far as possible, to obtain uniformity of action. We cannot get that uniformity if different clauses are inserted in different Bills. That reason, I should say, is sufficiently strong in itself, but my further ground is that if the arrangement come to in the manner I have described is to be upset it should only be upset after due deliberation. The hon. Member for South Somerset has suggested that these model clauses have been forced on the Police and Sanitary Committee by the Local Government Board. There could be nothing further from the truth than that. The Local Government Board simply did its duty in bringing those clauses before the Committee and recommending their adoption. I ask the House to stand by the decision of the Committee.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am sure that my hon. friend did not intend to initiate a debate on the merits or demerits of the model clauses. The question is not whether, if a corporation is willing and a county council is anxious that milder precautions

  1225
  against tuberculosis should be adopted in a Bill than are embodied in these clauses, they should be allowed to take that course. Something has been said as to uniformity, but seeing that Bradford and Leeds are next door to one another, surely it would be more uniform that Bradford should be brought under the operation of the Leeds clause than that the model clauses should be insisted upon. Now, there ought to be no misunderstanding as to what was the result of last year's conference. I attended that conference on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. We arranged these model tuberculosis clauses as a compromise. I feel bound by that compromise, and to that extent I should not be justified in opposing any Bill which contained the clauses. But what we fixed was the maximum and not the minimum of the powers which should be given to corporations to go outside their own districts for the purposes of dairy inspection, and I hold that if a corporation are prepared to take less than that maximum of power there is no reason why they should not be permitted to do so.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he had only a few words to offer upon the question. He had supported the views of the hon. Member for South Somerset formerly, but having since gone more carefully into the matter he had found that the only substantial difference between the Leeds and the model clauses was as to whether the necessary order for the inspection of a dairy outside a borough should be made by two justices sitting in petty sessions, or by one justice sitting in his own study. Now, he thought it would be immensely to the interests of dairymen and agriculturists that the order should be made by a single justice. If it had to be made in open court on a certificate by a medical officer to the effect that he had reason to suspect that milk drawn from a particular dairy was contaminated, then they might at once say "good bye" to that dairyman's business. The result of the inspection might be entirely satisfactory, it might be proved that there was not the slightest ground for the suspicion of disease in the dairy, but the mere fact that an application had been made on such grounds in open court and reported in the newspapers of the neighbourhood would practically shut up that dairy. On that ground he most strongly
  1226
  supported the clause in its present form, in the interests of dairymen themselves.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk argued in favour of milder clauses rather than severer ones in connection with the treatment of tuberculosis.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: No. I said that that was not the question before the House.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I wish to point out that these clauses deal with other diseases than tuberculosis. You may have an epidemic of typhoid or scarlet fever spread by means of milk, and these cases certainly require most energetic action. In Bristol we had an illustration of that, and I say that it is essential for the speedy discovery of the source of the epidemic that the power of inspection should belong to the suffering local authority without the intervention of another authority and the delay consequent thereupon. To return for a moment to the question of tuberculosis, I should like to point out that, as regards grown up people, it is steadily declining, and we are stamping it out in a satisfactory manner. The only cases in which the disease is increasing are those of children who are fed on tubercolosis milk, and I say that it is, therefore, necessary, in the interests of public health, that the source of the disease should be traced without any delay, and that full powers of inspection should be vested in the suffering local authority.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: As representing the constituency affected by this Bill, I wish to protest in the strongest manner of which I am capable against the high-handed way in which the Police and Sanitary Committee have dealt with arrangements locally made. The Bradford Corporation and the County Council of the West Riding agreed on a clause.
  MR. FLOWER: They agreed to submit it to the Committee.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I do not see the relevancy of that remark. As a matter of fact, an agreement was

  1227
  made between the Bradford Corporation and the West Riding County Council on a clause suitable to the local circumstances, and in accordance with that agreement the West Hiding County Council abstained from being represented before the Committee. Yet on the representations of the Local Government Board, the Police and Sanitary Committee have decided to put in an entirely different clause, without reference to the County Council, and without giving them an opportunity of being hoard. Now the County Council are face to face with the alternative either of attempting to destroy this very important Bill, or of accepting a clause with which they do not agree. I think the Committee should most undoubtedly have communicated with the County Council, which should have been heard on a matter so important to the public interest.
  MR. BRIGG MR. BRIGG (York W.R., Keighley), who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to express a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. Different towns drawing their milk supply from the same area should not have separate provisions giving different kinds of powers which would clash. He thought the clause had been properly considered in the interests of the district, and he supported the Bill.
  Bill ordered to be read the third time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STAND ING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERE TO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the ease of the following Bill, originating in
  1228
  the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Great Southern and Western Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  NORTH METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND CANAL BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
VALE OF RHEIDOL LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Atherton, Barmouth, Clitheroe, Leicester, Stafford, and Teignmouth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Atherton, Barmouth, Clitheroe, Leicester, Stafford, and Teignmouth," presented: accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
  LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
  DUNDEE HARBOUR BILL [Lords].

  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CLEETHORPES GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES CORPORA TION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be road the third time.

  OTLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES GAS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

IMSCHENETZKY'S URALITE PATENT BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IM- PROVEMENTS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
Mr. de Tatton Egerton reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill had stated that the evidence of Charles Herbert Wilkinson, of 224, Dashwood House, 9, New Broad Street, London, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House,, he had been instructed to move that the said Charles Herbert Wilkinson do attend the said Committee on Wednesday next, the 16th of May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Charles Herbert Wilkinson do attend the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills on Wednesday next, the

1231
16th of May, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the City and South London Railway Bill and the Cheshire Lines Committee Bill without amendment.
PETITIONS.
  BAKEHOUSES (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Chorley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petition from Thirsk, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOT LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF WOODLANDS.
  Petition from Chorley, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Horsham and Clearwell; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Oakley, Cowdenbeath, Dundee (three), Glasgow (two). Monifieth, Edinburgh, and Dingwall; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Ashton-on-Ribble, Leeds, Horsham, and Preston; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Preston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ellon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICUL TURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1889 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of nine orders relating to the landing of animals from the "Gladys Royle," "Majestic," "Charterhouse," "Orono," "Tanagra," "Matin," "Zeeburg," "Langham," and "Marselisborg" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1899, Part I. (District Statistics), Statistics of the Persons employed, Output, and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the Inspection Districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS).
  Copies presented, of Additional Articles to existing Money Order Agree-

  1233
  ments between the General Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the General Post Offices of Hungary, Luxemburg, Norway, Roumania, and Switzerland respectively, providing for an exchange of Telegraph Money Orders [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom in the year ended December 31st, 1899, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS COMPANIES (METROPOLIS).
  Copy presented, of Accounts of the Metropolitan Gas Companies for the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 170.]
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2418 to 2421 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States of America, relating to the Settlement of certain Claims in Samoa by Arbitration. Signed at Washington, 7th November', 1899. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 7th March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEAD POISONING.
  Address for "Return of the number of cases of Lead Poisoning reported as occurring (1) in the Earthenware and China industry for each month from January, 1898, to March, 1900, both inclusive, and (2) in all other trades."—(Mr. Coghill.)

  NEW WRITS.
  For the Isle of Wight, in the room of Sir Richard Everard Webster, Q.C., Master of the Rolls.
  For Dublin University, in the room of the Right Hon. Edward Henry Carson, Q. C, Her Majesty's Solicitor General.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That leave of absence be granted to Mr. Round for one week on account of domestic affliction."—(Sir William Walrond.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No doubt this is a very proper motion to make. But we must remember that there are other Members who are not attending the service of the House, and who have not obtained leave of absence. I believe that if a Member does not attend he can be sent for and brought up in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arm—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not at liberty upon this motion to discuss the rules relating to absent Members.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I said the motion of the right hon. Gentleman was a very proper one, and I think such motions are far too rare. The single point I wish to make is that I cannot understand this motion being made in regard to one hon. Member for a week's leave of absence, when we know officially—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not accepting my ruling.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to state, Sir, that in view of circumstances which are notorious in this House I think it not right that the right hon. Gentleman should make this motion in respect of one Member when he has not made it with regard to many others. I do not wish to animadvert on the rules of the House, but I do refer to the singular methods adopted by the right hon. Gentle-

  1235
  man in making this motion in one case and not in another.
  Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—COMPENSA TION FOR NATAL LOYALISTS' LOSSES.
    MR. FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Commission is sitting in Natal, and if so whether appointed by the Government, to determine claims for compensation made by loyalists of Natal for losses incurred by them in connection with the war; out of what fund the compensation awarded will be paid; and whether, if the Commissioners have expressed their intention only to give compensation for direct losses, instructions can be given to them not to limit their inquiry to direct losses, but to take all the circumstances of the case into consideration, and award full compensation for all losses incurred directly or indirectly.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The Commission was appointed by the Natal Government. As to the second question, compensation will be paid out of the indemnity to be expected from the enemy. As to the third question, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to interfere with the instructions given to the Commissioners not to entertain claims for indirect losses, the amount of which must always be very hypothetical.

    MILITARY COURTS OF INQUIRY.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what course it is proposed to take with reference to any incidents in the campaign in South Africa involving either an excessive loss of life or the surrender of considerable bodies of Her Majesty's troops as prisoners of war, in the absence of the regular machinery working automatically in the Royal Navy, whereby officers in command are able to prove before a court martial that their dispositions were perfectly correct, and
    1236
    that all possible precaution had been taken to ensure success.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOB WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Under the Queen's Regulations a Court of Inquiry is held to investigate the circumstances under which any officer or soldier has been made prisoner of war. This takes place as soon as possible after he has returned to duty. The question whether operations in the field have been properly conducted is decided in the first instance by the Commander-in-Chief in the theatre of war.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Do I understand that these inquiries will be held?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is laid down in the Queen's Regulations that an inquiry shall be held in every case in which an officer or soldier is taken prisoner.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESHave any of these inquiries been held?
    MR. WYNDHAM: They are not held until the prisoner is recovered, at the end of the war.

    WEPENER OPERATIONS—NON-PUBLI CATION OF CASUALTY LISTS.
    MR. ARCHDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that anxiety and suspense have been caused to relatives residing at home of non-commissioned troopers and privates in locally raised corps in South Africa by the non-publication of the regimental numbers of those killed or wounded during the operations round Wepener and elsewhere; and whether he will take immediate steps to obtain and publish the regimental numbers.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The regimental numbers of the men killed and wounded at Wepener have been telegraphed for. The muster rolls of Brabant's Horse and Driscoll's Scouts have not yet reached the War Office, so that it is not possible to check the numbers in those corps. Every effort is made to give the fullest description of each person who appears in a casualty list, but in some cases complete information is not immediately available.

    HICHER COMMANDS— APPOINT MENTS.
    MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the officers commanding divisions and brigades in South Africa have been appointed on the recommendation of the Army Board, or otherwise.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, that is the normal procedure which governs all appointments other than those specified in the question. The appointments to these higher commands in the Army in South Africa were made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Wolseley.

    INOCULATION AGAINST TYPHOID AND ENTERIC FEVER.
    MR. GEDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government can give any information as to the result of the recent experiments with regard to inoculation against typhoid fever; whether any report has been received from South Africa showing the number of cases of typhoid fever which have been found among persons who had been, or had not been, so inoculated respectively; and whether steps have been taken to provide Her Majesty's forces in South Africa with the means of such inoculation.
    MR. ROTHSCHILD: I beg also to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give any statistics to show how far inoculation has afforded protection from enteric fever, and to what extent patients who have been inoculated have contracted the disease in a milder form.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not yet in a position to give the information asked for, as the statistics at present available are not sufficient for forming a conclusive opinion. Only those men are inoculated who volunteer to submit to the operation, and according to returns at present received about 20 per cent. volunteered either before embarkation or during their voyage out. It is not considered advisable to inoculate them after landing in South Africa, as the operation might cause delay in their movements. Statistics have been called for from every
    1238
    station at home and abroad, and a special report regarding the garrison of Lady smith.

    FURLOUGHS FOR WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether twenty-eight out of the non-commissioned officers and men who have been invalided home from Africa owing to illness contracted or wounds sustained in the campaign, subsequent to their examination by the principal medical officer at Netley, applied at the Assistant Adjutant Generals Office for furlough, but received refusals to their application on the ground that their services were required for duty at Netley; why, out of the 6,000 men who have been invalided home from the front, should an exception be made in the case of these men to the practice of permitting men invalided from the war to go on furlough; and, whether, having regard to the disappointment to the invalided soldiers and their friends entailed by this refusal of furlough, the War Office authorities will reconsider their decision in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Furloughs have, as the hon. Member points out, been very freely granted, but a certain number of men are necessarily detained at Netley to perform the duty of attendants at the hospital. The selection of these men rests with the General commanding the district, and he will no doubt take care that the duty shall not press inequitably upon any individuals.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will these twenty-eight poor fellows get their furlough in duo course?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member suggests that any men have been detained on duty until fit for service, and then have been sent back without having leave granted them, I will inquire.

    PAY OF MILITIA ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
    MR. C. E. SHAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the pay of officers of the Militia Artillery, when embodied or out for training, is supposed to be the same

    1239
    as that of corresponding rank in the regular Army; and, if not, on what grounds.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Militia Artillery officers when out for training receive Militia pay; when embodied they receive the same pay, including armament pay, as officers of the corresponding rank of the regular Artillery.

    MILITIA—OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES PENDING EMBODIMENT.
    MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Special Army Order of 3rd November, 1899, entitled Embodiment of Militia, declaring that all recruits already enlisted or enlisted during embodiment are to be drilled at the headquarters of their regimental district for at least forty-nine days, and that they will not be regarded as embodied militiamen until posted to an embodied unit, applies to officers; and, if so, are they entitled to mess allowance for the forty-nine days.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, the regulation does not apply to Militia officers, who on appointment to embodied Militia battalions receive ordinary Army pay and allowances.

    WAR MEDALS.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping division of Essex I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can issue an open competition for the design of the South African War medal if this medal is designed under authority of the Mint.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): In order to avoid complaints which have on some former occasions been made of delay in the preparation of medals, the authorities of the Mint were some time ago requested to submit designs to the Secretary of State for a South African medal. One of these designs has since been approved by Her Majesty, and the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for an open competition cannot therefore be adopted.
    LORD BALCARRES: At whose orders was the instruction given to the Mint, the result of which has been to preclude the possibility of competition?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The ordinary course is for the medals to be prepared by the authorities of the Mint, and the Secretary of State asked the Mint authorities to prepare the designs.
    MAJOR RASCH: Whose designs were accepted?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have-written to the Mint to ascertain that. I do not know the artist's name at the moment.

    MILITARY PENSIONS—CASE OF JOHN WALSH.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the case of John Walsh, late private in the 1st Battalion of 24th Regiment (Welsh Borderers), and to the fact that Walsh lost his health whilst serving in South Africa in a campaign against the Kaffirs in 1876; that he afterwards served in 1877 in the Carrington Horse in the Transvaal and endured hardships; that he was afterwards invalided from Cape Town with weak lungs and sent to Netley Hospital, but, his illness being found chronic, was discharged on a pension of 7d. per day for twelve months only, and which then accordingly ceased; and that he was afterwards employed at Fort Westmoreland in Cork Harbour, but was discharged on the report of the military surgeon as being unfit for the work on account of the ill-health from which he was suffering; and whether any provision will now be made for this man, either by renewing his pension or making him a grant by way of compensation, for the permanent injury to his health sustained while on active service.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The man was discharged as unfit after less than five years service and was awarded a temporary pension of 7d. a day, which was continued for over three years, but ceased on his being reported to have nearly recovered. The case shall, however, be referred to the Chelsea Commissioners.

    EMPLOYMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for

    1241
    1900, Paragraph 99, page 20, to the effect that the majority of Government Departments do not fill their vacancies as messengers from the list of candidates kept at the War Office, and in view of the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House upon retired soldiers' and sailors' employment, 1894–5, he will endeavour to procure that such appointments shall be filled from the official register of selected candidates, both in the interests of the Departments concerned and of the retired soldiers seeking employment.
    In putting the question the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to have inserted after the words "official register of selected candidates," in the last line but one, the words "or other military authority."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I understand from the interpolation of my right hon. friend that he does not now object to information being obtained from these societies in addition to the official list kept at the War Office. If he will put his amended question on the Paper I will see if there is any further answer to be given.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think the First Lord understood my question. My intention was that these offices should, as far as possible, be filled by soldiers and not by outsiders.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not quite gather that that was the object, but the policy pursued, and the number of soldiers actually appointed will become apparent when the Return asked for in the question is in the hands of hon. Members.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has any objection to a Return being issued showing in detail the number of discharged soldiers employed by each Government office respectively; and if he can state why this information, which was given in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting last year, has been withheld this year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to granting the Return which is asked for in this question, and it will contain all the information the hon. and
    1242
    gallant Member wishes for in detail. As to the second paragraph, the matter is entirely one within the discretion of the Inspector General of Recruiting.

    WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
    SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state if any decision has yet been arrived at as to including H.M.S. "Hyacinth" in the autumn manœuvres; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the "Hyacinth," being fitted with water-tube boilers, is a sister ship to the "Isis" and "Dido," fitted with boilers of a different type, these last-named vessels having successfully undertaken express duties at their highest speed in transferring Lord Kitchener from Egypt to South Africa; and whether a similar test of endurance will be applied to the boilers of the "Hyacinth."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The "Highflyer" will shortly be commissioned for regular service, and it cannot at present be stated with certainty whether she will take part in the autumn manœuvres. I am aware that in December last the "Isis" conveyed at her full speed Lord Kitchener from Alexandria to Malta, and the "Dido" from Malta to Gibraltar, but not to South Africa, as suggested in the question, the distances being 820 and 980 miles respectively. The "Isis" averaged 16 knots for her 820 miles on the passage from Alexandria to Malta, being delayed by bad weather; the "Dido" averaged 17.9 knots for her 980 miles from Malta to Gibraltar. Comparative trials have already been carried out between the "Highflyer," a sister ship of the "Hyacinth," and the "Minerva," a sister ship of the "Isis" and "Dido"; and although the distance covered by the "Highflyer" and "Minerva" in any single trial was not so great as the runs made by the "Isis" and "Dido" the results are fairly comparable. Two trials of thirty hours' duration each were made by "Highflyer '' and "Minerva" at full speed. In the first "Minerva" did 526 miles at an average speed of 17.5, and "Highflyer" 538 miles at 17.9 knots. In the second "Minerva" did 541 miles at 18.03 knots, and "Highflyer" 569 miles at 18.97. No special endurance tests or trials beyond

    1243
    those laid down for ships on commissioning have been arranged for the "Hyacinth." When in regular commission opportunity will he taken to test her boilers and machinery, as the course of her service admits of it.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: When the trials have been concluded will the report be given?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The trials of the "Highflyer" and the "Minerva" have been finished. The total distances were 9,000 miles, showing the anxiety of the Admiralty to have fair tests. I will consider the question of publishing reports of results, but certainly the information shall be given to the House in some form.

    ASHANTI — DISTURBANCES AT KU MASSI — AUSTRALIAN COMMON WEALTH BILL.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies two questions—first, whether he has any news regarding Kumassi, concerning which rather startling reports have been circulated; and, in the second place, when the papers relating to the Australian Bill will be in the hands of Members.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Papers, I hope, will be distributed with regard to the Australian Commonwealth Bill on Saturday morning. As regards the other question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, I have heard with great astonishment since I came into the House that a report of the character he suggests has appeared in an evening paper. All I can say is that I have no official information whatever confirmatory of it. The last information which I had from the Gold Coast reported that large reinforcements which had been sent from Nigeria had arrived at Accra, Cape Coast Castle, and were being sent up immediately to Kumassi. I hope, therefore, they will arrive in time to prevent any such possibilities as are rumoured.
    MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the officers wounded in the recent engagement?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We have no information.

    SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE—RE PORTED NATIVE RISING.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to the effect that there has been renewed insurrection in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the cause and extent of the rising.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No. There was a statement in the newspapers that there had been a rising of the Yonnis, but I have inquired and found that there was no truth in it.

    SIERRA LEONE—SALE OF SPIRIT AND AMMUNITION LICENCES.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether trade licences other than those for the sale of ammunition and spirits in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone have been abolished as recommended by the Sierra Leone Chamber of Commerce in 1898; and whether any tax corresponding or equivalent to the hut tax in the Protectorate has yet been imposed upon the colony of Sierra Leone.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The trade licences referred to have not been abolished. An Ordinance to impose a house tax in the colony has been passed.

    CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONS—CON- SIDEKATION OF GOLD COAST SERVICE.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the effects upon Europeans of prolonged residence on the Gold Coast, the Colonial Office takes care to promote judicial and other officers of the Crown who have acquitted themselves satisfactorily in their offices, and who have been in residence for a reasonable time in that colony, to other posts in healthier climates.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, officers who have served for live years in West Africa, and have discharged their duties satisfactorily, are regarded as having claims to promotion to offices in healthier climates, but unfortunately the number of appointments at the disposal of the Secretary of State in such climates is so small as compared with the number of officers in West Africa that it is practi-

    1245
    cally impossible to find appointments for all the officers whom the Secretary of State would wish to promote.

    CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES— REMUNERATION AND COMMISSION.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he agree to a Return giving the total amount of remuneration received by each one of the Crown Agents for the Colonies during each of the last five years; the detailed account of the sources whence in each of such years the fund was derived from which such remuneration was paid; the purpose to which any overplus of such fund beyond the amount required for the remuneration of the agents was applied; and the source whence any deficiency of such fund to meet the remuneration in question was provided, when the fund itself may have proved insufficient for the purpose.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Return will be prepared and presented as soon as practicable. I have no doubt my hon. friend is already aware of what I am about to state—namely, that the Crown Agents for the Colonies are paid by fixed salaries—salaries fixed by me as Secretary of State—and that those salaries do not vary in proportion to the commission which the office receives.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I take it that they receive fixed salaries out of Imperial funds?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY— GRANT IN AID.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any, and, if so, what objection to laying upon the Table of this House an account showing how the sum of £2,500, representing the annual grant in aid out of public funds to the Incorporated Law Society, was arrived at, and of what items that sum is composed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The sum of £2,500 was arrived at from figures supplied by the Incorporated Law Society, and I will communicate with them and see whether there is any objection to those figures being presented to the House.

    RUSSIA AND TURKEY—COALING STATIONS IN THE ÆGEAN SEA.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, have Her Majesty's Government any information respecting any communications passing between the Government of Russia and the Government of Turkey with reference to a request that Turkey should grant to Russia two coaling stations in the Ægean Sea, one at Tenedos and the other at Rhodes.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Her Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the report in question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have the Government any information?
    MR. BRODRICK: No official information.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING—SCALE OF CREWS' PROVISIONS.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that seamen are continually making complaints with regard to the scale of provisions supplied to them on British merchant vessels, and whether he can state if the Board of Trade is prepared to introduce a measure with the object of establishing a scale of provisions which will prevent scurvy and such like diseases, and give more satisfaction to our mercantile marine.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am not aware that seamen are continually making complaints with regard to scales of provisions on British merchant ships. They have certainly not made them to the Board of Trade, and I am not prepared to propose any alteration of the law on the subject which leaves the scale to be settled between owners and masters and their crews.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made at the Mercantile Marine Offices as to whether complaints are made or not?
    MR. RITCHIE: I shall be glad to investigate any complaints, but I am not going to invite them.

    THE "CORUNNA."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the outbreak of scurvy on board the Glasgow sailing ship "Corunna"; whether he is aware that three of her crew are lying in hospital at Dunkirk and two others at Greenwich Hospital, all suffering from this disease, and that the men allege that they are suffering from scurvy in consequence of the character of the food supplied to them during the voyage; whether he will cause an inquiry to be held with regard to this case; whether he is aware that the scale of provisions supplied to these seamen is the same as was issued on sailing ships in 1850; and whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to provide a dietary scale which will allow seamen a greater variety of provisions.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the case of the "Corunna," which has just arrived in this country. An inquiry into the outbreak of scurvy on board has been ordered, and until I receive the report of that inquiry, I am not in a position to say anything further about the case. As at present advised, I do not intend to propose any fresh legislation with regard to seamen's provisions.

    THE "BEACON ROCK."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of scurvy on the British sailing ship "Beacon Rock," of Glasgow, whilst on a voyage from London to San Francisco in 1899; whether he is aware that Enoch Oleman, one of the sailors, was put into hospital at San Francisco suffering from the malady, and that the crew allege as the cause of the scurvy that the beef, flour, and water supplied to them were unfit for human consumption; whether he can explain why Enoch Oleman did not receive his wages due to him up to the time of his discharge at San Francisco; and whether he is aware that the scale of provisions supplied to the men is the same as was issued in 1850.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I have no information with regard to an outbreak of scurvy on the "Beacon Rock." The Consul General at San Francisco has been
    1248
    asked for a report upon all the points referred to in the question. It is only right that I should add that the owners inform me that no outbreak of scurvy occurred at all, that Oleman was suffering not from scurvy, but from asthma, bronchitis, and general debility, and that his wages were paid, as required by law in such cases, to the Consul. I have been furnished with documents in support of these statements. I am further informed that (though the old scale of provisions was on the articles) it was in fact largely supplemented, and that the crow made no complaints during the voyage.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Consuls to report all such cases to the Board of Trade immediately a man is left in hospital?
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "all such cases." It is denied that scurvy broke out among the crew.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is it not the fact that the Board of Trade issue a book of instructions to Consuls, in which they are directed in cases of sickness to make reports to the Board of Trade? I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has received such a report from the Consul in regard to the sickness of this man, and, if not, why not?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    [No answer was returned.]

    POOR LAW ADMINTSTRATION— COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
    MR. PAULTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Northumberland, Tyneside Division, I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board why the Government have not brought in a Bill to carry out the recommendations in regard to the poor law unanimously made by the Select Committee appointed last session to consider the Cottage Homes Bill, and whether the Government would now introduce such a Bill if an assurance were given that the Bill would be considered in an uncontroversial spirit.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): I have been most

    1249
    anxious to deal with this question this session, but I have been unable to do so. I have prepared a series of new regulations affecting the classification of inmates in workhouses, with the view of securing separate accommodation for the aged and deserving poor. I have also carefully considered a Bill which would be required in connection with these regulations, and for the purpose of giving effect to other recommendations of the Select Committee; but my difficulty has been this, that the necessary legislation would require the aid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and having regard to the enormous expenses which he has to meet at the present time, I have come to the conclusion—although very reluctantly— that this is not a fitting moment to make further demands upon him. It is for this reason that the Government have not brought in a Bill on the subject.
    SIR U. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH: Is this the Bill which was expected by the House, dealing with imbeciles and epileptics?
    MR. CHAPLIN: The question on the Paper has reference to the Cottage Homes Bill.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS—ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the arrangements consequent upon the vacation of Sir Reginald Palgrave's quarters, he will contrive that the office for the issue of orders of admission to strangers may be placed at a less inconvenient distance from the place where strangers present themselves to seek such orders.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot do so. I would point out to my right hon. friend that orders of admission to strangers are issued by Mr. Speaker's Secretary, and their issue from a separate office would be very inconvenient; further, that the remedy suggested would only apply before 4.45 o'clock, when orders of admission are granted by the Serjeant-at-Arms.

    KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL—CASE OF MISS BEATTY.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney
    1250
    General whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Saturday, 21st April, Miss A. J. Beatty, upon her application for medical treatment at King's College Hospital, was refused admission; and whether the authorities of this public institution are bound to afford relief to suitable applicants for medical treatment without discrimination.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): It is, I believe, the fact that Miss Beatty was refused admission at King's College Hospital. As far as I know, there is no legal obligation on such institutions to admit any particular individual.

    LAND TRANSFER ACT FEES.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the largely increased charges in small mortgages occasioned by the fees under the Land Transfer Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The officials of the Land Registry have been communicated with, and I am informed they do not know to what increased charges the hon. Member refers. If he will give me further information, I shall be happy to cause full inquiry to be made into the matter.

    WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General will he explain why His Honour Judge Bacon has decided not to sit at the Whitechapel County Court until the 14th of May, thereby causing inconvenience to many hundreds of litigants.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Information has been received from the learned Judge that he arranged his vacation at a time when the business of the Court would best permit of his absence, and that it is quite a mistake to suggest that he is causing inconvenience to many hundred of litigants. I believe the learned Judge, who has been for twenty-four years Judge of the Court, was obliged to extend his holiday in consequence of ill-health.
    MR. STEADMAN: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if it is not the fact that all the other Courts in

    1251
    London have been open for some weeks past, and that the only case where the Court has been closed is in this poorer district?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am not aware; I shall be happy to communicate with the hon. Member.

    CIVIL SERVICE—SERVICE COUNTING FOR PENSIONS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the reply of Mr. Hamilton to Question 2,399, Minutes of Evidence, Committee of Public Accounts, 1889, to the effect that it is the ordinary practice for the Treasury to treat two broken periods of established service as one, unless it is broken by the act of the individual himself, whether the established service of an assistant of Excise who, having successfully competed for a clerkship of the higher division, resigns his assistantship, and takes up his new appointment after an interval of a few days or a few months, is regarded as broken by the act of the individual himself.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): If the officer does not resign his old appointment until he has received from the Civil Service Commissioners his certificate of qualification for his new one; if, moreover, such resignation is clearly and avowedly for the purpose of enabling him to take up his new appointment; and if he takes up such new appointment at the date when he is called upon (by the authorities of his new Department) to do so, the Treasury would be prepared, in the absence of very special circumstances, to reckon the earlier service for pension.

    POST OFFICE—NEW SICK LEAVE REGULATIONS.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the regulations governing the sick absences of the Post Office staff have been altered recently; whether he is aware that the changes made have not been notified to the officers concerned; and whether the Postmaster General will take steps to publish the particulars in the post offices throughout the country.
    MR. HANBURY: The regulations relating to sick absences of the staff have not been altered recently; but certain modifications have been made in the regulations as to the reports on such absences which are required to be made to headquarters; and a notification on the subject has been issued to the heads of departments and surveyors. It is not the practice to publish such circulars unless it is necessary that the staff should be made acquainted with the directions contained in them.

    TELEGRAPHISTS — INCREMENT ON QUALIFYING FOR SPECIAL DUTIES.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that an increment should be given to telegraphists who qualified for sorting duties, will he explain why the Department has issued regulations debarring all clerks who entered the service since 1896, and all officers who were appointed at amalgamated offices and are now stationed, at large towns; and whether, in accordance with the promise made by him that the Tweedmouth recommendations would be earned out, the Postmaster General will give instructions that the Departmental limitations will be withdrawn.
    MR. HANBURY: The special increment was recommended by the Tweed-mouth Committee as an encouragement to officers employed on postal duties only to qualify in telegraphy and to telegraphists to qualify in postal duties, as it had not previously been the general practice to require them to do so; but officers who under the conditions of their original appointment were liable to qualify in both branches of duty are not entitled to the special increment.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee that an increment should be given to telegraphists for the acquisition of technical knowledge, will he explain why the Department has declined to recognise certificates which are over five years of ago and refused to accept the pass in electricity and magnetism although the Science and Art Department provides the Post Office with an official list of success-

    1253
    ful candidates; and whether, in view of the Secretary to the Treasury's statement that all the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee are to be carried out, the Postmaster General will authorise the withdrawal of the limitations imposed by the officials since the issue of the Committee's Report.
    MR. HANBURY: The recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee was that under conditions to be laid down by the Department a double increment should be given to each officer passing an examination in technical telegraphy, and the Postmaster General in recognising certificates obtained five years previously -considered that he had gone as far back as could reasonably be expected, experience having shown that officers who had obtained certificates had not always kept up their technical knowledge. The Postmaster General does not see any reason for withdrawing the limitation. The Postmaster General is not aware of any refusal to accept a properly qualified pass in electricity and magnetism, and if the hon. Member will furnish particulars of such refusal, enquiry shall be made.

    ATTORNEY GENERAL—SALARY AND FEES.
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the sums received by the Attorney General last year, amounting to £17,264 for salary and fees, are in accordance with the terms of the last Treasury Minute; and, if so, what alteration is proposed for the present year.
    MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir. The, Minute referred to provides that the Attorney General shall receive a salary of £7,000 a year for all noncontentious business, and that for contentious business he shall receive fees according to the ordinary professional scale, moaning thereby the scale of fees which a Queen's Counsel of average standing in the profession might accept from a private client. Under this provision the Attorney General received fees amounting to £10,264 in the year 1898–9. This was greatly in excess of the average owing to special payments amounting to £2,585 in connection with the Venezuela Arbitration. I am not aware that there is any intention of altering the Minute as regards the present year.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Government see that justice is done to this lamentably underpaid official?
    MR. COGIIILL: Will the Government consider the advisability of payment of the law officers by fees or salary, but not by both?
    [No answer was returned.]

    HORNING (NORFOLK) SCHOOL BOARD.
    MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford whether the schoolhouse at Horning, Norfolk, is the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and whether the Commissioners are still prepared as hitherto to allow the use of the school-house to the Horning School Board.
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: Horning school was erected in 1875 upon a site which forms part of the permanent estate of the See of Norwich, which is at present under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The site has not been conveyed under the provisions of the School Sites Acts. The Commissioners so far as they are concerned are prepared to allow the building to continue to be used for the purpose of a school under the management of any duly constituted board of managers.

    BROUGHTY FERRY FERRY.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the Tay Port and Broughty Ferry ferry case, tried before Sheriff Campbell Smith at Dundee on 4th May; and as the duty of keeping the ferry open at all times for the convenience of the public lies by statute with the North British Railway Company, whether proper representation being made to him will enable him to take steps, and whether upon such representation being made to him he will take the necessary steps, to compel the company to carry out their legal obligation in this regard.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): My attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, in which the Procurator Fiscal seems quite properly to have interfered in the interests of public safety. With regard, however, to the question of whether the North British Railway Com-

    1255
    pany are properly discharging their obligations as grantees of the ferry, I have no title to interfere. The right and duty of enforcing the obligations which lie on the grantees of a ferry at common Jaw formerly belonged to the Justices of the Peace and the Commissioners of Supply, which latter body are, since the Local Government Act, in this matter represented by the County Council. I express no opinion as to whether their title would or would not be effectual in the case of the statutory obligation in question.

    DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS TO IRE LAND—CARDIFF CASE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Cardiff Poor Law Union took action on the 30th April last to deport a pauper named Ellen Webster and her three children to the Rathdown Union, county Dublin: whether, in view of the fact that the Government introduced a Bill on 9th April ult. for the prevention of the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland, and that it is now awaiting Second Reading, he proposes to sanction the removal of Mrs. Webster and her children to Ireland before the passing of that Bill into law; and whether he can say what steps the Government are prepared to take to facilitate its immediate passage.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): I am aware of the case mentioned in the question, but no sanction on the part of the Local Government Board is necessary to the removal of Mrs. Webster and her children, and they have no power to interfere in the matter. I have twice moved the Second Reading of the Bill referred to, and it has been no fault of the Government that progress has not been made with it. They are very desirous that it should pass into law as soon as possible.

    NEWBLISS POSTMISTRESS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, can he state upon what date the late postmistress of Newbliss, county Monaghan, tendered her resignation, when it
    1256
    was accepted, and upon what date was her successor appointed; was any public intimation of the vacancy given, and were candidates invited to offer themselves for the post; and, if so, how many made application, and will he explain why a communication made to the Department by Mr. Kelly, of Newbliss, about the 18th of January, stating that the resignation of the postmistress was imminent, and asking that the public might have a chance of competing for the vacancy, was answered that nothing was known of the pending resignation; and is he aware that out of the ten or eleven persons employed in connection with the Newbliss Post Office, in a district four-fifths of the population of which are Roman Catholic, all but one belong to the Protestant religion.
    MR. HANBURY: The sub-postmistress tendered her resignation on the 10th March, and her successor was appointed on the 11th of April. An application for the appointment was made by Miss Mary Daly, who has had ten years' experience in post office duties, and had been assistant at Newbliss for two years. Miss Daly's claims and qualifications were such as to render her well fitted for the appointment, and it was not thought that any useful purpose would be served by inviting applications from the public. In January last, when Mr. Kelly made the application referred to, the Department had no reason to suppose that the late sub-postmistress intended to resign her appointment, and Mr. James Kelly was accordingly informed, in reply to his inquiry, that a vacancy was not then anticipated. The Postmaster General has no cognisance of the religious beliefs of those employed in the Newbliss Post Office.

    LAND PURCHASE—LEAHY ESTATE, COUNTY CORK.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenantry on the Leahy Estate (in Chancery), situate near Liscarroll, county Cork, sent in their applications for purchase under the 40th Section of the Land Act, 1896, some three years ago; and whether he can state the cause of the delay in dealing with these applications, and whether steps will be taken to facilitate the sale of the holdings to the

    1257
    tenants under the section above mentioned.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am informed by the registrar of the Land Judge's Court that this question does not contain sufficient information to enable him to identify the particular estate referred to. If the hon. Member will supply me with some additional particulars, including the name of the townland in which the estate is situate, I will cause further inquiry to be made.

    IRISH LOAN FUND SOCIETIES.
    MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the usual system of payment to receivers appointed over loan fund societies in Ireland; will he explain why, when Mr. Baird, the present receiver over the dissolved loan fund society at Carndonagh, refused to accept the usual receivership fees, special arrangements wore entered into between the meetings of the Loan Fund Board on 29th January and 26th February last, whereby he might receive commission and percentage equivalent to £50 per annum; and whether the members of the Loan Fund Board were consulted in the matter.
    Mr. G. W. BALFOUR: Receivers appointed by the Loan Fund Board are usually paid a percentage upon the amounts collected by them. A suggestion was made by the Inspector of Loan Funds that the receiver over the Cardonagh Society should be paid a sum of £50 for a year's work, but the suggestion was not approved of by the Board, and the receiver subsequently accepted the appointment upon the Board's terms —namely, that he should be paid a percentage at a rate to be hereafter determined. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative.

    LORDS OF APPEAL—ENGLISH, SCOTCH, AND IRISH APPOINTMENTS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Lordship of Appeal in Ordinary vacated by the resignation of Lord Morris, who was, previous to his appointment to this office Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, has been filled by Sir Nathaniel Lindley, late Master of the
    1258
    Rolls, and on what ground has departure been made from the unvarying practice with regard to the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—namely, that two should be filled by the English Bar Judiciary, one by the Scotch Bar Judiciary, and one from the Irish Bar Judiciary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the system of Lords of Appeal has been in existence a sufficient length of time to constitute any practice of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been in existence since 1876, and that the practice has been invariably followed, and will not this constitution of the Court of Appeal be a warning to the Australians to avoid it?
    [No answer was given.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. TENNANT: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say what will be the business next Thursday?
MR. ARNOLDFORSTER: May I ask, at the same time, when the Shipbuilding Vote, and the Vote for the Secretary of State for War, will be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have recently discussed the salary of the Secretary of State for War, and I do not imagine that we shall be able to take either of the Votes mentioned by the Member for West Belfast before Whitsuntide. I am unwilling to pledge myself on the point, as it is important to leave open to us the opportunity of taking any Vote we choose, and I therefore do not care to say anything definite for more than a week in advance. I may say with regard to the business that the Australian Commonwealth Bill will be first Order on Monday next, and I think I shall put down as second Order a motion for taking Tuesday mornings until Whitsuntide for Government business. If that motion is carried I shall take the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Assessment (Scotland) Bill on Tuesday morning. On Thursday I propose to take the Report of the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill as the first Order, as it will, I understand, by that time have come down from the Grand Committee. On the Friday I hope to take the Scotch Estimates.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether the right hon.

1259
Gentleman is in a position to go a little further and toll us about the following week. It would be a great convenience to the Irish Members if he were able to announce when Irish business will be taken. In addition to the Irish Estimates there are two Bills I want to know about —the Charitable Loans Bill and the Tithes Bill. Possibly the former, which requires a certain amount of discussion, could be taken in the same week as the Irish Estimates. But as to the latter, it is a contentious Bill, which will require a considerable time to discuss, and it would be more convenient if that were not taken until after Whitsuntide.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unwilling to give the wide pledge asked for by the hon. Member with regard to the Tithes Bill until I have had time to consider the matter. In reply to the remainder of his question I have to say that, in the week after next, Monday will be devoted to the Second Reading of the Australian Commonwealth Bill, and if that stage is passed in a single sitting—as I hope—on the Tuesday morning the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill will be the first Order, and Irish Supply the second Order; and Thursday and Friday of that week I propose also to devote to Irish Supply.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will repeat my question as to the Tithes Bill two or three days hence. May I now ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what he intends to do with regard to the two Irish Education Bills? When will they be introduced?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Intermediate Education Bill and the Elementary Schools Bill will, I trust, prove to be non-controversial, and my intention is to introduce them under the Ten Minutes rule on Tuesday next.
MR. HALDANE: When will the Factory Bill be taken? Will it be before Whitsuntide?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It cannot, at any rate, be taken in the next two weeks, and I think its chances of being taken before Whitsuntide are very meagre.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. ROBSON: I think that, having regard to the promises of social legislation which we are accustomed to hear from Her Majesty's Ministers, we are entitled to reproach the Government with not having taken up this subject and dealt with it in a comprehensive and thorough going way, although it is quite conceivable that they may have some reason for postponing a task of such considerable magnitude. However, they laid themselves open in this Bill to that reproach, and I venture to think they will find it hard to meet. Not only have they omitted to deal comprehensively with this urgent subject, but even in the one small proposal they have selected for legislation they have omitted—I may say they have refused—to accompany that proposal, excellent in itself, by any of the obvious, practical, and simple provisions which might make it a measure of real service. They could have been proposed with very little difficulty indeed on the part of the Government, without the risk of introducing any of those principles which hon. Members regard as dangerous. I hope it is yet possible to make this small measure into one of the most useful measures of social legislation passed in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the measure has not indicated his sense of its importance by any very lengthy explanatory statement. The proposal in the Bill is that local authorities shall be empowered to go outside their districts for the purpose of establishing working men's dwellings for those who work inside their areas. I apprehend that the measure has been thought necessary on account of some legal opinion expressed on the

1261
part of those who advise the Ministry. For my own part it seems to me that it was not really necessary at all, because under Section 175 of the Public Health Act, and also under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, local authorities have already powers to go outside their districts to purchase land on which to erect workmen's dwellings. However, if the Ministry have been advised that this Bill is necessary, then the proposal is one which by itself is not likely to meet with opposition on the part of any section, or indeed any individual Member, of this House. But it is a proposal which, standing alone is, as I have ventured to say, of very little value indeed. What was the old method of trying to deal with this great national evil of overcrowding? We have hitherto tried to deal with overcrowding in the overcrowded district itself. We have given to local authorities this, that, and the other power to deal with the state of things within their own borders, whereas it has long been obvious to those interested in this question that the true remedy lay in inducing either the local authority or the people themselves to go beyond that district, and to seek their homes elsewhere. In so far as the Bill is an indication of that policy it is good. I venture to submit to the House that there are only two methods worth speaking of—two alternative methods—by which the question of overcrowding can be dealt with in this country. One method is familiar to all of us in the proposals of land taxation. Under that principle the owner of the ground which is unbuilt on would be required to pay rates not upon its agricultural value—which, of course, is inconsiderable—but upon a fair percentage of the capital value, so that the owner of the land would find it not to his interest to hold the land back until it reached a famine price. Of course, a great deal could be said for that proposal, but I am not going to discuss it or urge it now. Whether the principle be good or bad, it would undoubtedly settle to a very large extent the question of overcrowding. I do not dwell on that principle because I understand it to be a method to which the Ministry and hon. Members are very strongly and indeed almost unanimously opposed. Then there is another method which is suggested by this measure—that of inducing working men to go out from
1262
the industrial centres to live in cheap and healthy houses provided in the rural districts. With regard to this measure it is really very important that there should be cheap means of communication. Cheap means of communication are absolutely vital to the success on any considerable scale of the principle which is indicated by this Bill. What is more, the means of communication must, as a matter of fact, be either supplied or arranged for by the local authority. Where a town is extending its buildings, no doubt the means of communication will follow the increase of the streets; private enterprise in the shape of buses or trams will provide ample means of communication between the suburbs and the centre; but where you desire that an increase of buildings should take place by advantage being taken of this Bill, where you desire that an increase of buildings should take place not in the immediate suburbs, but on the cheap land beyond the immediate suburbs, then private enterprise finds itself unable to provide the means of communication. On the one hand, it cannot undertake to supply the means of communication to some district to which as yet there is no traffic, and, on the other, it cannot undertake to build houses until it is absolutely certain that there would be adequate means of communication, and therefore, as I say, cheap means of communication are the first essential, and indeed the one essential, of any attempt at what ought to be done—namely, to relieve the overcrowded centres by taking the people right beyond the urban boundaries. These means of communication ought to be in some way arranged for by the municipal authorities. It is not in the least degree likely that the tramway accommodation would be sufficient for the conveyance of the people, for such great distances as this Bill will ordinarily contemplate, and for this very practical reason, that if any local authority proceeds under this Bill to buy land well beyond its boundaries, it will not be very readily induced to run tramways beyond its boundaries, because first of all the operation would be speculative. It would involve a risk to the ratepayers at the very time when the local authority is parting with a very considerable number of its ratepayers. Therefore, if you leave it to private enterprise to provide tramway accommodation, or if you leave it in the hands of the municipal

1263
authority to run its own tramways, the arrangement will not be very effective. But there is already an admirable means provided by an existing statute to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. That is, the Cheap Trains Act of 1883. It is the application of that Act to the proposal outlined in this Bill on which I seek now to lay stress, and that is what I refer to in more general terms in the Amendment, when I urge upon those in charge of the Bill to provide means of communication between the working centres and the places where the workmen's houses are to be built. What is the Cheap Trains Act of 1883? It enables a Local Authority, and others also, to go before the Railway Commissioners, and to represent to them that there is need for special working class accommodation between various crowded districts. If the Railway Commissioners think that the need is made out, they order that trains shall be run at certain hours in the morning, before eight o'clock generally, and at certain hours in the evening for the convenience and accommodation of the working classes. That is no confiscatory measure, and it is a consideration which has cost the railway companies nothing. There need be no apprehension on the part of the railway interest, or fear on the part of hon. Members against a legitimate application of that Act. Where does the Act fall short in its application under this Bill? What I seek to do is to induce the President of the Local Government Board to make, by way of an Amendment or an enlargement of his Bill, the Cheap Trains Act of 1883 apply as between the crowded centre and the working class settlement in the cheap district which he proposes to set up. At present it does not do so. If my Amendment were accepted the result would be that if a town council in a rural district desired, it would have the right to go before the Railway Commission for an order, subject to reasonable restrictions, entitling the new district to powers for providing accommodation, so that such accommodation could be kept just sufficiently in advance of the population in the new settlement to make it safe on the part of either corporations or private enterprise to build on these now centres. That proposal involves no new principle, and if adopted the effect would be this: It would enable the local authorities to settle the overcrowding question in a very
1264
large degree without entering into any speculative building of their own at all. Private enterprise has been checked now by want of the very proposal I have made. Once my proposal is carried, I believe private enterprise will take up this Bill so enlarged, and it will undoubtedly produce a great and beneficial effect upon the overcrowded centres of our large towns. There is another suggestion in my Amendment which meets with a very large amount of sympathy on this side of the House, and I know many Members opposite are in agreement with me upon this point. It involves no new principle, and it is one which the Government may very easily adopt. It is a suggestion that there should be a slight, but very effective, reform in the law of compensation with regard to insanitary areas. Hon. Members are probably familiar with the attempts which have been made by this House—very carefully and admirably devised attempts—to prevent inordinate compensation being given to those who own insanitary dwellings, who ought, in fact, to be somewhat penalised rather than over-compensated. But, singularly enough, the very attempts which the Legislature has made to prevent inordinate compensation have resulted, in some cases, to the advantage of the house sweater or the middleman who trades on the overcrowding of the poor. For instance, in Section 21 of Part 1 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act it is enacted that whore a house is declared insanitary and condemned, it shall be valued upon the basis of its real worth as land and material. In many cases that suits the owner. The house is generally in some very crowded situation and is generally capable—or it is said to be capable—of being used for other purposes. Therefore, when the compensation comes to be assessed, the owner of the insanitary property comes forward, or else sends some skilful representative, and appears with a fanciful reconstruction scheme, and on the plans for this property appear breweries, factories, warehouses, and everything to indicate that this land is of the greatest possible value. The owner is rather disposed to say, "I wish you would take the material in with the compensation." Upon that basis see what happens as regards the local authority. The local authority taking the land under the compulsory provision of the Housing of the Working

1265
Classes Act does so knowing that it cannot be used for various other purposes. When the local authority has paid compensation upon that basis it cannot cover the land with breweries, factories, or warehouses, but it has to build on that land dwellings for the working classes which have to conform to all modern requirements. What I venture to ask with some confidence is, that when compensation for insanitary dwellings comes to be assessed, it should be assessed on the footing that the owner seeking compensation is to be treated as though he were under the obligation to use that land for the proper accommodation of the same class of persons as those who lived upon it before. Hon. Members are aware that that is the obligation attaching to the land in the hands of the local authority, and if that is an obligation cast upon the local authority, why should it not be taken into account by the landlord, and treated as being subject to that obligation when compensation is assessed? If that were done there would be an end to many of these arbitration cases and all these ridiculous reconstruction schemes which mislead juries and arbitrators, and put fictitious and extravagant values upon land which is intended to be used only for working class dwellings. It was clearly intended by the Act of 1890 that the owner of insanitary property should be in some degree penalised. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that compensation should be narrowed by every strict and fair rule, so that the owner of house property who has bought it as house property shall not be allowed to value it as though it was something else. Those are the two plain practical proposals at which I aim in my Amendment, and I shall await with interest to hear whether arty member of the Government objects to these proposals, or can give any valid reason why they cannot be embodied in this Bill. I feel it would be very little use to talk to the House about particular features of the existing law, or particular remedies for overcrowding, unless I can convey to the minds of hon. Members some vivid impression of what I mean. When the country does really come to appreciate what is meant by overcrowding I venture to say that this question, which is now treated as little short of a local government question, will take its place as being the most important question within the whole sphere of modern legis-
1266
lation. Depend upon it that when the country has once appreciated the meaning of this great evil, Governments will no longer venture to deal with it in a piecemeal and trivial fashion of which the measure now before us is no illustration. When people come to understand the magnitude of this evil this question will be put first in every political programme. In London overcrowding has become a most appalling scandal, and the causes which are operating in London are also operating in other places. What always strikes me as a remarkable circumstance about this question is that overcrowding is very often looked upon as a social problem unsusceptible of a remedy. But it is quite the reverse. The remedies for overcrowding are known, and they are both simple and practical. The evil of overcrowding is not like intemperance or other vices which will evade any statute. No one claims to be overcrowded, and overcrowding arises from conditions which are under social control. That is a fact which, if impressed upon the mind of the House and of the country, would be worth almost anything to social reformers in this country. When we come to appreciate this, and also that all those evils which arise from overcrowding are under social control and within the legitimate sphere of practical legislation, then overcrowding will be effectually dealt with. The alteration which I am suggesting now is consistent, if not with the principles of the Conservative party, at all events with the precedents which the Conservative party have laid down. Whom does overcrowding affect? It used to be thought, and there is still an idea abroad, that the overcrowded are the destitute. That is, of course, largely true, but it is a most inadequate description of the overcrowded class. The evil of overcrowding has long since extended beyond the destitute or the improvident, and beyond those who cannot, or will not, earn enough to keep their families in decent dwellings. It is very well put in a recent report issued by the Bethnal Green Vestry, which says—
"It is no longer within the means of working men earning ordinary labourers' wages, to provide decent house accommodation."
That is speaking, of course, with regard to the Bethnal Green district. That is a fact on which one may well pause in order to realise its appalling significance.

1267
It has given rise to a phenomenon which is new in English social life—the phenomenon of industrious, honest, hard-working men being driven to send, in some cases their families and in other cases themselves, to the workhouse, because there does not exist any other house accommodation for them in the district. That has now become no uncommon case. But very few instances of it are enough to confirm the allegation I have just made that the question of overcrowding now concerns classes which are far above those who are destitute and improvident. It is said that you ought not to encourage the local authority to go in for speculative building enterprises, but already the local authorities have thrown upon them the obligation of seeing that the people in their districts are housed in some way or other. You have told them that they must not allow overcrowding, and you have made overcrowding penal; and it has become the duty of the local authority in numerous districts to unhouse a great number of their people. If you make it their duty to unhouse people you must give them the right and the means of rehousing them. The law enacts that there shall be at least 400 cubic feet of space for every adult, two children under twelve counting as one adult. The House will get some idea of what that 'means when I point out that 1,000 cubic feet of space is required by law for two adults and a child. That would be equal to the space in a room ten feet square. Nobody can say that that is an extravagant air space. Therefore anything less than that is a punishable offence. How many persons, according to that standard, are overcrowded in London? I have found it difficult to verify anything like the exact figure. It is impossible to tell to a few thousands, but going by the reports—the admirable and exhaustive reports made to the London County Council—the figure generally accepted is that there are no less than 900,000 people in this metropolis living in an overcrowded condition. That means that nearly one-fifth of the population of London are living in illegal occupation of their dwellings. That is an appalling truth. Of course it covers many of the worst cases, and it includes all those numerous instances of single-room dwellings of which we hear so much. Generally speaking, when people are talking about overcrowding they seem to
1268
think that it is confined to cases of single rooms, but that is by no means the case. Although you may find the worst cases of overcrowding in single rooms, yet you do not find there most of the cases of overcrowding. You find a very fair number of single-room dwellings passed into the statistics as proof of overcrowding when there is no overcrowding at all. The worst cases of overcrowding are to be found in two-roomed and three-roomed dwellings. You have these cases of over-crowding often occurring in the most respectable-looking streets. I remember reading with some astonishment not long ago the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1885. It mentions three streets in Newcastle which are very well known to me, and a more respectable-looking street you could scarcely wish to see; and yet the Commission reported that in those streets there were thirty-four four-roomed houses containing 140 families of all sizes. In another street there were fifty four-roomed houses standing together containing 230 families; and in another street there were sixty small houses containing 310 families. And yet a stranger walking down those streets would think that they were the dwellings of the artisan class, and he would have no conception of what was going on behind those brick walls on either side of him. Along with the single-room system there is another which extends even beyond that, and that is the single-bed system. Take the vestry reports, which afford painful and terrible examples of the most shocking character. We read of twelve and seventeen people in one room, of thirty-one people in one small house, forty-two people in another small house, and so on. I hesitate, however, to give instances of that kind to the House from vestry and other reports, and for this reason. When one gives instances of this character they are accepted as though they are isolated and exceptional. They are nothing of the kind. They happen to be mentioned in vestry reports because of some special circumstances connected with them, but they may be taken as fair ordinary types of whole streets—aye, and of whole districts in London. It is not a mere question, of course, of people living in these rooms. They live in them and they sleep in them, but in many cases they also have to work in them, and some of the trades carried on in these rooms

1269
are peculiarly deleterious to health, such as rag-picking, sack-making, and matchbox-making. Trades of that kind are extremely injurious to health when carried on in small rooms. It is quite needless to dwell on the physical and moral results of such a system as that. Indeed, one may say to-day, as Lord Shaftesbury said fifty years ago, when things were not as bad as they are now, that the results of overcrowding in our great cities are absolutely beyond description. It is not a question of rent—that is to say, if a working man were able to pay any rent you like, the houses simply do not exist, and there is no space available in these crowded districts to build houses upon. My hon. friend the Member for Stepney, who is competent to deal with the subject, will I daresay refer to the question of rents, but I would wish to give one illustration from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1885. I should like to press on the minds of hon. Members the date of that Report—namely, 1885—and the mischief has been growing steadily worse ever since. Mr. Marchant Williams gave evidence before that Commission. He was an inspector of the London School Board, and he conducted an inquiry in certain poor parishes in London, such as St. Lukes, St. Giles, and Marylebone, into the rents paid by the poorer classes. A thousand houses were taken at random in these poor districts, and Mr. Marchant Williams gave various figures as a result of his investigations. He said that 46 per cent. of the industrial classes in the houses which came within the scope of his inquiry paid from one-fourth to one-half of their incomes in rent. That shows that the people who suffer are in receipt of decent wages, and it is not as though they were suffering in consequence of their own vice, improvidence, or idleness. They are hardworking, industrious, decent people, and pay an enormous rent for accommodation they do not get. Two or three days ago, in one of the London papers, a correspondence appeared with reference to the raising of some rents in Bermondsey as a result of the Budget brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As we all know, the right hon. Gentleman added fourpence in income tax. Some of the slum landlords in Bermondsey immediately proceeded to raise the rents of their tenants, and the reason they gave was because of the tax imposed by the
1270
right hon. Gentleman. There was no reason why they should have given any reason for raising rents in a poverty-stricken district. It was wholly superfluous. The landlords can raise rents in the same way and for the same reason as years ago in Ireland landlords could take in rent what they pleased over and above the subsistence amount necessary to keep the tenant alive. There is no limit whatever to the power of the landlord to raise rents, apart from his own sense of humanity, which, no doubt, operates in many cases. The causes which have produced this position are still in operation. It is not merely that I am asking the House to have regard to a stationary evil—that is to say, an evil that can wait. No, the numbers of the overcrowded are already enormous and are also increasing at a rate that is enormous. We all know if we stop to think about it what are the causes that bring about this situation. I am not. going to attempt an exhaustive enumeration of them. I will merely take railway demolition and public municipal improvements. As regards railway demolition we had an instance lately of twenty-one streets having been wiped out by the Great Central Railway, and in doing that accommodation could not be found for a, tithe of the people displaced. One official instance is given where a railway was put under an obligation in its Bill to provide housing accommodation for the people it displaced. All it did, however, was to buy out a building scheme from a builder which was promoted before the railway extension was thought of, and the company regarded that as a fulfilment of its obligation. Then again, public municipal improvements are increasing, and ought to increase, and must go on increasing, but as they go on increasing they will, under existing conditions, enormously increase overcrowding. And, it is not merely railway demolition and public improvements that have to be considered. It is necessary above all to consider the transformation of dwelling houses, especially in the poorer districts, into workshops and shops. I have no statistics as to that, but undoubtedly it is a most potent cause of overcrowding in the poorer districts. Suburban buildings, which may be miles and miles away, are wholly inadequate to make good the displacement that is being caused, and it is idle to suppose that suburban buildings can really have any effect on the question. Then with regard to

1271
block dwellings, I think they must be pronounced hopelessly--I was almost going to say ludicrously—inadequate, although I do not wish to use a term which may imply disrespect to the honest efforts which have resulted in their erection. We know that the County Council, than whom no body is more earnest or more capable in dealing with this problem, has displaced 24,000 persons and only replaced 10,000. These are figures for which no person can reproach the County Council, because, ex hypothesi, if you pull; down houses in a crowded district you cannot erect the same number on the site as formerly. I know some of my hon. friends believe that a non-legislative remedy would be provided by the discovery of new methods of traction. That is a very plausible and tempting suggestion, but just lot the House consider it for a moment, and it will be seen how very delusive it is as a ground for hope. No more striking improvement in locomotion was ever introduced into this country than when railways wore introduced; but have railways dispersed the population? They have on the contrary concentrated the population. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] The hon. Member says, "No, no." It is quite, true that railways have dispersed some of the population, but they have concentrated more than they have dispersed.; This is the important point to remember, and if we have fresh inventions and improvements in traction one sees no reason why the same result should not follow in them as followed the introduction of railways. The fact is that improved locomotion means increased manufacture, increased wealth, and increased prosperity, but under existing conditions all these desirable things mean also increased overcrowding. You cannot escape it. You cannot avoid the two alternatives I have put before the House; you must either cheapen that dear belt of land which surrounds every city, or else you must carry your working classes beyond that belt. Well, now, instead of adopting this remedy, what has Parliament done up to the present moment? It has passed law after law to make overcrowding illegal. We say by statute that hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who are living in the conditions I have described should be liable to penalties because they do not live under better
1272
conditions. We know perfectly well that these unfortunate people are the victims of social conditions which they are powerless to alter, and yet by way of remedy, and for their benefit, I suppose, we say that they will be punished if they overcrowd. Well, you might as well try to cure poverty by making it a penal offence. That would be just as reasonable. The various measures which have been passed in regard to overcrowding certainly ought not to be spoken of lightly, because of the admirable motives which prompted them; but when we look at them broadly as an attempt to remove evils of such magnitude they are altogether inadequate. Take, for instance, the Public Health Act of 1875. It provides that the local authority shall be able to fix the number of persons who occupy tenement houses, and, of course, makes it penal for any number of persons beyond that number to live in those houses. Suppose that law were adopted and enforced all over London to-morrow, what would happen? You would have hundreds of thousands of people sleeping, or dying if you like, on the pavements of London tomorrow. But that is the law which we think is adequate to meet the case. This little measure will take rank with some of its less important predecessors, but standing as it is now, it will be utterly frivolous, and it will share the fate ultimately of another admirable little measure, the Labourers' Dwelling Houses Act of 1881, to which Lord Shaftesbury referred in his evidence before the Commission. He said that that measure had been a dead letter from the commencement. That is what I am afraid this measure is going to be, unless it is amended in the way I have ventured to suggest. In the meantime overcrowding is going on until it has become a national scandal and peril of the first magnitude. I have certainly no desire to exaggerate the evil in any way. The subject scarcely admits of exaggeration. No one needs to be told that overcrowding of the sort I have mentioned must be a fertile source both of intemperance and sexual impurity. I think, and all my hon. friends near mo will agree with me, that from a temperance point of view this question is of the first importance. No one needs to be told either that unless this evil is checked and driven back—at present it is driving us back—a very large portion of our race will suffer for

1273
generations from weakened constitutions and broken character. Already we have more than two-thirds of our population in our towns, and less than a third in the country. The proper proportion ought to be two-thirds in the country, and one-third in the towns. And more and more people are coming into the towns within the scope of this evil. Therefore, I venture to say, it is no longer a mere municipal question; it is a national danger in the very fullest sense. You may expand or consolidate your Empire as much as you like; you may increase your defence forces; you may add to your wealth and excel in every external sign of national greatness; hut if you let this question alone, if you leave it to be cured by Bills of the kind before us, you will allow the foundations of all national greatness to be sapped. I think that each political party should be called upon to define its attitude in regard to this question. Already we are entitled to ask the Government their position on it. The day is, I hope, not very far distant when this question will overshadow all others. I shall be glad to see the day arise when it will swallow up all others. This Government gave large promises of social legislation. We commiserate the Government on the fact that many of these promises have been submerged. Old age pensions are not very practical just now. The money seems to be going in other directions. But here we have a matter of far greater importance, to my mind, than even old ago pensions, a matter which demands and is capable of receiving solution without any call whatever on the national purse. A little trouble, a little courage, a little sympathy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and he may turn it into a measure which will be of enormous service in the arrest of the evils I have been speaking of. Of course the two suggestions which are made in my Amendment are merely a beginning. They have been cut down to moderate dimensions in the hope—I trust it will not be a futile hope—that they form a ground which both political parties may occupy on this matter. I am certain that these proposals are acceptable to many hon. Members on the other side of the House, and if accepted by the Government we shall have made a practical and hopeful start in the solution of this problem; but if not
1274
accepted by the Government it will be for the Government to say what they are going to do. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
MR STEADMAN: In rising to second the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Shields, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who introduced this Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, that there was one thing alone in which I agreed with him, and that was when he stated that the Bill was of a very modest character. Compared with the magnitude of the subject, I do not think that the Bill could be more modest. Three months, nearly, have now elapsed since the Bill was introduced, and I was in hopes that this afternoon we should have had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading, and that in that speech we should have been able to learn that he himself had come to the conclusion that this Bill was one that would not at all grapple with or solve the problem. I understand that during the Easter vacation the right hon. Gentleman has done a little slumming in the East End of London. I am only sorry that he did not call at my modest residence, because within a few hundred yards of that residence I should have shown him some slums that I consider would have startled him as to the places in which the workers of London are living at the present moment. It was my hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have put his own Bill on one side, believing that it was useless, and would have accepted, on the part of the Government, the Bill introduced by myself, as one more likely to deal with the subject than his own. Now, the subject under discussion this afternoon is no new one. On 8th May, 1847, The Times came out with a very lengthy and able leading-article on the question of the housing of the people. Parliament has been trying to deal with it by Acts passed during the last fifty years. In 1851 we had the Act of Lord Shaftesbury; in 1868 we had the Act of Mr. Torrance; in 1875, 1879, and 1882 we had three Acts passed by Mr. (now Lord) Cross. In 1884 the present Prime Minister—and that is the reason why I am surprised that the Government have introduced this very modest Bill—

1275
moved in the House of Lords for a Royal Commission, and on that occasion he was supported by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. In the same year in the House of Commons, the late Mr. Gladstone appointed the most powerful Commission that has over been appointed by any Government to go into this subject, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was a member of that Royal Commission. In 1890, when Lord Salisbury and his party were in office, as the result of the Report of that Royal Commission, Parliament passed the Housing Act. But what was that Act? It was merely a consolidation of the previous Acts which I have already referred to, with perhaps one or two slight amendments. It was divided into three parts—Lord Shaftesbury's Act being Part III., Mr. Torrance's Act Part II., and Lord Cross's Acts Part I. Well, under Part III., municipalities are allowed to acquire land to build workmen's dwellings upon that land. Under Part II., municipalities or county councils can, in conjunction with the local authority, clear an area at joint expense—the county council getting one portion and the local authority the other portion. Under Part I, county councils can themselves clear an area and pay the whole cost of that clearance. Now, although these Acts have been passed, yet at the same time the question is more difficult to solve now than ever it was. The mover of the resolution has referred to the question of overcrowding, and I am going to deal for a moment with the question as far as it affects London. I take my authority not from any books or pamphlets or articles that have been written, but from Dr. Shirley Murphy, the medical officer of health to the London County Council, and in doing so I consider I can find no higher authority on that question. He tells us we have no less than 400,000 human beings in the City of London to-day living in one room only. [An HON MEMBER: Not in the City.] Well, in the county, and is not the City part of the county, and is it not shirking its responsibilities upon this housing question, and throwing them on the county? If it is not part of the county why has it representatives on the London County Council and the London School Board. Nine thousand people are living seven in one room, and 3,000 are living eight in one room. This state of things is not con-
1276
fined only to the East End of London. The Reverend Hugh Price Hughes—a gentleman who, at the present moment, should have some weight and influence with Her Majesty's Government—one Sunday afternoon preached a sermon on this subject at St. James's Hall, and stated that one of his colleagues knew of a case not very far from where he was preaching where one house was occupied by forty-three people. In one room was a man and his wife and eight children; in another a man and his wife and seven children, and the eldest son was married and lived with them. In St. Pan-eras, not far from Regent's Park, 2,370 persons live in overcrowded one-room tenements. The medical officer of health in Kensington—the aristocratic part of London—states that he knew of a case where five adults, females, all occupy one bedroom—three sleeping on the bed and two underneath; and another case of five persons—one man and two children, and two women who in this case also slept under the bed. One of the vestrymen—and I place some reliance on our vestrymen in London in these matters, because I consider they are, above all, the persons who know-exactly how and under what conditions the people live, even better than Members of Parliament—one of the vestrymen of St. James's Vestry declared that he knew a case where a room was let at,£1 a week where there were twelve persons living and sleeping together. In Camberwell, which is on the south side of the river, there is a case where no less than seventeen people live and sleep in one room, and in another case two families occupied one room, a sack forming the partition which divided the room into two But in the East End of London there are even worse cases, because there in many cases the beds are let out on eight-hour system. A man has to get out a certain hour. Some men start their work at ton o'clock at night; and when they go to work somebody else goes to bed who has to be at work at six in the morning, and when he goes to work another man occupies the bedroom; and in some cases, in consequence of the want of house accommodation, working men, in employment, are obliged to take their wives and families into the workhouse, and pay for them until such time as they are able to find accommodation for them outside. That has been done in Poplar.

1277
My colleague on the London County Council has told the.president of the Local Government Board of circumstances coming under his notice where this has been rife. Rev. Mr. Jephson, a member of the Nowington Vestry on the south side of the river, could toll you of cases that occurred in that direction. There never was a time in the history of this country when house accommodation was harder to get or rents higher. Such a state of things has never been known since the Great Fire. Where formerly six people occupied a house we have now on an average twenty-four people, and in order to accommodate the number of persons who to-day are living under conditions contrary to the provisions of the Public Health Act we should want to build something like from 400,000 to 500,000 rooms, or 50,000 to 60,000 eight-roomed houses. Does the right hon. Gentleman assume, because he is going to give powers to the London County Council to purchase land outside the County of London itself, that we are going to find accommodation for this great number, one-fifth of the total population, living in overcrowded tenements? The mover of the resolution referred to the cubic space, but that is not an Act of Parliament, but a bye-law under the London Health Act, and refers to London alone, and all it lays down is that every person should have 100 cubic feet of space in the room in which he lives. Professor Huxley, himself at one time a medical officer of health, stated that at least 800 cubic feet of space was necessary if people were to grow up in health. In the Army you allow 600 cubic feet, and 450 for the police, and the poor in the workhouses, according to the law, are entitled to 500 feet. I have referred to the medical officer of health for Kensington, but he is not the only one. The right hon. Gentleman in his Department is supplied with all this information, Let him look at the reports of the local medical officers of health for Islington and for Lambeth, and he will find they are equally as strong as that of the medical officer of health for Kensington. A woman, the wife of a working man, some month or two back, applied to the Lambeth County Court, She had been living in a house, and the landlord wanted to get her out; neither she nor her husband had been able to find a suitable place to which to go, and the landlord, in order to get them out, took down the
1278
door and removed the windows. She applied to Judge Emden and asked for protection, and he was so struck by the hardship which they had endured by the harsh action of the landlord that he immediately consented to allowing them a month longer in which to find accommodation. In answer to a question he put to this woman, she stated that not only was she not in arrears with her rent, but when she tendered it her landlord refused to take it. But, Sir, there is even a worse case than that: a case of suicide. An inquest was held in the month of November last year, and at that inquest it was stated by the husband that he had been married fourteen years and had eight children. For very nearly four years he and his wife and family had lived in a first floor front room, but of late only his wife and himself and four children occupied the room, the three younger children having been removed. The wife was confined, and during her confinement the landlord told her that they would have to clear out, that they were living contrary to the provisions of the Public Health Act, and not being able to find accommodation elsewhere it so preyed on the poor woman's mind that she committed suicide. The local authorities have the power in their hands at the the present time under the Public Health Act to prevent overcrowding it is true, but I maintain that under the Act you may hunt the poor from pillar to post, turn families out of one place and drive them into another, and still you will never sweep away the overcrowding problem. As a member myself of a vestry in the East End of London, I am opposed and shall always be opposed to putting into operation the provisions of the Act against overcrowding because I know it is useless to do so until such time as we can find proper accommodation for the people we shall have to turn out. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this subject, and from my point of view a very important side, namely, the death rate among the working classes arising out of this overcrowding. What has the Government had to do? I do not know from memory how many years, but during a certain number of years on two occasions you have had to reduce the standard of height for men entering the army. Does it stand feasible that the sons of working men born and bred in these slums which we

1279
have in London to-day are going to grow up healthy and sound, and with fine physique, in order that they may undergo the severe strain which our soldiers are put to at the present time in South Africa? It is a matter of impossibility, and the Government have recognised that when they have reduced the standard height for the Army. The late Sir Benjamin Richardson once laid it down that no city could be healthy with more than twenty-five persons living to the acre. In Wandsworth there are eighteen persons living to the acre, while in St. George's-in-the-East we have no less than 256 persons living to the acre. Now we will take the death rates in those places. In St. George's-in-the-West the overcrowding is 10 per cent., in St. George's-in-the-East it is 40 per cent., and in St. George's-in-the-South it is 35 per cent. In St. George's-in-the-West the death-rate per 1,000 is 13·2, while in St. George's-in-the-East it is 26·4, so that you see the death rate in St. George's-in-the-East, where there is overcrowding, is just double what it is in St. George's-in-the-West. According to the returns of St. George's-in-the-West there were 1,064 deaths in one year, and 264 of these were children. In St. George's-in-the-East there were 1,259 deaths, and 661 were children. The medical officer in Central London stated that the death rate in one house was equal to 129 in the 1,000. Dr. Shirley Murphy, the medical officer of health for the County Council of London in the last report issued, states that the mortality from phthisis at each age increases with overcrowding. Then lunacy is on the increase in London, so much so, that the County Council is spending thousands of pounds to build lunatic asylums. If we take the average over the whole of London the increase is 1·9, but if we take it in the densely populated districts it is 10·1. The total number of pauper lunatics admitted into our asylums from overcrowded districts is something like 2,700, all told, and the cost to the ratepayers 10s. per week for each lunatic. I have dealt with the subject so far as public health is concerned with overcrowding, Now, I want to deal with another subject which bears upon this question— namely, the increase in rents. On 17th March last year—and I am sorry the First Lord of the Treasury is not in the House—I called the attention of the right
1280
hon. Gentleman by a question to the fact of the increase of rents in London. His reply to me was that he had no information on the point, nor had he any means of obtaining it. I followed that question by another on 24th March.* I asked him whether, in order that he might have full information of how rents had been in- creased in East London, and of the results of overcrowding thereby, he would appoint Commissioners, whose duties should be to investigate to what extent rents had been increased during the last two years, and the causes and results of such increases upon the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman replied—
"I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of overcrowding is one of the most important that can be considered in connection with the urban problems that face us, but I do not think that much is to be gained from the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman."
If the First Lord of the Treasury was in his place now, I should give him some facts from my own personal investigation as to where rents had increased in East London only during the last two years. The figures are not taken from anything I have read, but from my own personal inquiries addressed to the tenants on the spot. I find that in some cases in my own constituency rents have increased within the last two years from 13s. to 18s. per week; in another street from 11s. 6d. to 16s.; in another street from 9s. 6d. to 16s.; in another street from 5s. 6d. to 10s. 6d.; and from 9s. 6d. to 15s. This morning, not a hundred yards from where I am myself living, a widow stopped me. She has six children to support, and the rent of her house was 14s. per week. She gets her living by letting the house to lodgers and doing a day's washing or charing. That woman, with tears in her eyes, told me that the landlord had increased the rent from 14s. to 18s. What could the woman do? There is no accommodation in Stepney. Every place is taken up and overcrowded. The worst cases we have of increasing rents are in Whitechapel, where five-room houses have gone up from 15s. or 16s. per week to 21s.; two-room houses, which fetched 10s., have gone up to 16s. to 21s.; six-room houses, which were let at £4 4s. per month, are now fetching 42s. per week. Other houses have gone up from 16s. to
* Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxviii., page 1151; vol. lxix., page 340.

1281
20s., from 19s. to 30s. In another case the rent was £45 a year, and is now no less a sum than 30s. per week. The rents have increased all over London. Whether you go east, west, north, or south, you will find the same talc told, that rents have gone up. At Plumstead, Bermondsey, and other parts of London, the increase is 50 per cent. How do the landlords work this dodge of increasing the rents? First of all, they know that there is a greater demand for accommodation than there are houses to put the people in. I do not say that every landlord is a bad landlord. I know estates in the East End where the landlords have not increased rents a farthing for years past. The landlord I have lived under for seventeen years has not increased my rent a farthing, while rents all round the district have increased. I believe in speaking of people as I find them. I am not here to attack good landlords or good employers, but the bad landlords and bad employers are my line of attack. A young follow, a friend of my own, who has written some very useful articles on this subject and published them in a pamphlet entitled "No room to live," in order to ascertain how certain landlords took advantage of the great demand for accommodation, got up early one morning and went to a house agent in the East End of London, who was advertising a house to let. When he got there, there were a number of people at the place before him. He let them go in one after another, and at last he went in and asked the man the rent of the house. The agent told him that the woman who had just gone out offered 15s. per week, but if he liked to give him l6s. per week he could have it. The agent admitted that he had allowed these people to bid up against one another until he got 15s. for a house which was previously let for 7s. 6d. A certain section of men had come to be so unscrupulous as to practise legalised robbery —robbing working men of their wages by demanding such exorbitant rents—and working men had a right to step in and ask Parliament to protect them against unjust landlords. There is only one way, in my opinion, of solving this problem, and that was a system of fair rent courts. I am told that the time is inopportune to discuss the question of fair rent courts in London, or in any other part of the country. I never knew yet when the time was opportune to dis-
1282
cuss legislation that had for its object benefit for the working classes of this country. Some politicians are termed opportunists. They sit on the fence and wait to see which way the cat is going to jump. When a question becomes a popular one, they drop down on the side of popularity. I hope I am not one of those politicians, and never shall be. It is immaterial to me whether the question is popular or unpopular if it is just and right to take it up, for the interest of my own class is paramount with me over the interests of all other classes. Why not? Working men may be deluded by some of your promises for a short time, but they find you out. The question which is not popular to-day may be some day, and perhaps there will be many more Members of Parliament prepared to take it up than now. Five and twenty years back the land question and the rent question in Ireland was unpopular. The Irish Members in this House were denounced when they advocated fair rent courts for Ireland, but to-day they are a reality. I hope they will be reality so far as we are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board when he replies to-night may turn round and accuse me of being one of the members of the London County Council, who could do more in reference to this problem than they had already done, but I have an answer to that. The London County Council is restricted on all hands by your Board and the Home Office. What has been our experience? In ten years we have spent no less than £2,000,000, and housed 42,000 people with it. The schemes we have carried out under Part I. have cost £851,450, and out of that sum no less than £282,406 has gone into the pockets of men who, instead of being compensated for their rotten property, should have been prosecuted. At the present moment if we undertake a scheme under Part I. we have to build in accordance with the regulations of the Home Office and the Local Government Board. Personally I do not object to that. I believe if a municipality is going to build, it should build well or not at all. We have to make the land a charge upon the buildings. We have to borrow money in accordance with the fluctuations of the market. It may be 2⅞ 3, or 3⅛; per cent. We have to take into our calculations the cost of the land, the cost of the

1283
clearance of the buildings, etc., and we have to base our rents to provide a sinking fund of 3 per cent. in order to repay the capital and the interest of the loan. What happens? The result is that our rents are so high—["Hear, hear!"] It is not our fault. It is the fault of the law and not the fault of the municipality. Our rents are so high that the places rebuilt do not come within the purview of the poor unskilled worker or general labourer, and therefore we are accommodating people to-day who could find not better but other accomodation elsewhere, and the poor people are entirely neglected. That is our own experience. What is the remedy? I maintain that, in the first place, the Government should give us facilities for borrowing money at a lower rate than 2⅞ or 3 per cent., as the ease may be. Why, not? You can find money to carry on the war. Is not this question equally important to you as the war in South Africa, if not of more importance? Where do you get your soldiers and sailors from? Why, you get them from the ranks of the workers. Aye, and, what is more important still, where do you get the industrial workers from who produce the wealth without which neither this or any other Government could go on? From the workers. That being so, you have a right to protect them in every shape and form, and to find them better accommodation than we are able to find them now. Then we should have opportunities for borrowing money at the lowest rate possible. Instead of having to repay the money in sixty years the time should be extended to a hundred years. Our property is not slum property. I was a member of the Housing Committee myself for five years. I inspected some of the houses we built. We had timber enough in the roof to frame a ship. Our houses will last 200 or 300 years. At the end of sixty years all the money we have expended will have come back ten times over, and that will be a great relief to the ratepayers of that period. If our houses are going to stand 200 or 300 years, surely it is no hardship to extend the period for the repayment of the loan from sixty to a hundred years. If that was done the County Council could do more in the way of providing house accommodation than they are able to do at present. It is no use saying was have no opportunities of building in London.
1284
We have 14,000 acres of land to-day in London which could be built on provided the County Council had bettor opportunities than now. We have a little patch here and there and all over the place, and if we cannot build it is because the patches are so small that the rents would be three times as costly as are charged to the tenants now. You compel the County Council to charge such rents. The poor tenant has to pay rent not only for the cost of the land on which the house is built but for the building also. If all London is going to reap the benefit of our housing policy in fifty years time, then all London ought to pay for it, and the land ought to be an asset instead of being, as now, a charge on the building. There is another difficulty the London County Council has to contend with. If the owner comes to know that it is the County Council who are going to purchase, what does he do? He doubles his price in a moment. The result is that we have to negotiate through some outside gentleman in order that the owner of the land should not know it is the County Council who are anxious to purchase. We had a case only last year where negotiations were going on for some land. A question was asked in the Council about it, and from the answer it leaked out that the County Council were negotiating for the purchase, and up jumped the price at once, with the result that the Council had to drop the negotiations. We have not only to pay the value of the land, but we have to pay an extra 10 per cent. over the value. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, Sir, we have to pay 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase under the Land Clauses Act. I am referring to Part III. All vacant land should be taxed, and if that were done the owner would then be very ready to sell his land for the first offer he could get for it, whereas now, through vacant land being untaxed, he can keep it as long as he likes. It becomes the more profitable the more years he keeps it, and the result is that he gets a price for the land that he really is not entitled to. The slum owner, as I have already stated, under the existing law is allowed full compensation. Take Boundary Street—one of the worst in London, where the death rate was double that of any other part of London. It was well known that the owners of property in that area were prepared to

1285
sell the property for a bagatelle, but the moment they found the County Council was going to purchase they demanded their full pound of flesh—they demanded the full price for their rotten bricks and morter. A few weeks back an inquest was held on the death of an infant child which took place at 10, Windsor Court, Strand. The father admitted that three children had died in his two-room house, and that an inquest had been held on each one. The law allows the slum owner to go free, while it allows the local authority to prosecute the fishmonger for selling bad fish, and the butcher for selling bad meat, and all tradesmen for; selling adulterated food. If it is right to prosecute the fishmonger and the butcher, the same thing should be done in the case of the slum owner who is responsible for the deaths of little infants in his rotten slums. I am fortified in this opinion by a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. He once stated in a speech that the law should make it an offence punishable by a heavy fine to let property not fit for human habitation, but instead of having such a law as that today we are compelled by the law to compensate the owners. Mr. Blashill, for twenty years chief architect to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and with vast experience and knowledge on this subject, states that at least the slum owner should be compelled to pull down and rebuild at j his own expense without any compensation at all. With reference to your Bill, he says it is not worth the paper it is writ- ten on so far as solving this problem goes. We had during last autumn many speeches delivered on this subject. I i maintain that it is a very serious problem, and I also admit that it is a very difficult one. At the same time I consider that it is a problem that deserves, above all things and all parties, the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. We know that working men and women are stunted in their growth, that consumption is on the increase, and that disease and death lurk in every corner and every street where there is slum property. Lord Rosebery in a speech stated—
"The facts that are presented to us are daily coming to the minds of the people, and, they hope, ultimately to our statesmen."
Lord Carrington stated that he welcomed the fact that the working men were:
1286
waking up on this question, and that it was unjust to them to have to pay such excessive rents. Lord Tweedmonth stated that London had grown according to the sweet will of the ground landlord and the jerry-builder, and London was now faced with a problem infinite in its magnitude and most difficult to deal with. Above all, the Prince of Wales, in opening the Boundary Street area in March last, said—
"There is no question at the present time of greater social importance than that of the housing of the working classes."
I hope Parliament may be able to deal with the case of those who are responsible for insanitary property. In dealing with this matter it is not my desire to deal with it from a party point of view, or as a means of attacking Her Majesty's Government. I admit I have referred to speeches delivered by gentlemen belonging to this side of the House. If I have not referred to speeches delivered by gentlemen on the other side of the House, the fault is not mine but theirs, because they have made no speeches on the subject. I know that the Government have a very difficult task on their hands in the war in the Transvaal, but, at the same time, they have no Bill before the House of Commons of any magnitude whatsoever, and I fully expected, when the housing of the working classes was referred to in the Speech from the Throne we should have a Bill which would deal with the problem from its very roots. Instead of that we get a paltry Bill, which, so far as we in London are concerned, consists of one clause, enabling the London County Council to purchase land outside its own area. This measure will no more solve the problem than a glass of water will float one of Her Majesty's battleships. The longer the problem exists the more difficult will the solution become. I trust the Government are serious in this matter. After all, the working classes do not care a rap whether it is a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government which deals with the question; they only require that it shall be dealt with effectually and practically. At the last Trade Union Congress, representing 1,250,000 working men, a very important resolution on this matter was passed, and a mass meeting was held in Hyde Park last autumn on the subject,

1287
at which something like 100,000 men were present. It is in their name, not in my own, that I speak on this subject, and I voice their grievances and desires that something practical should be done to remedy and solve this important problem.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no Bill dealing with the Housing of the Working Classes can be regarded as adequate which provides for the amendment of one part only of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890; which omits to amend the law relating to the assessment of compensation for unhealthy dwelling houses; and which makes no provision whereby the councils establishing dwelling houses outside their districts may, where necessary, be enabled to obtain adequate railway or other communication between their districts and such dwelling houses,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Robson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR, SAMUEL HOARE: This question is no party question; it is a national question; and the hon, and learned Member who proposed this Amendment truly stated that the feeling in the country upon the matter was growing day by day. I believe that at the present moment there is no question which is of deeper interest to the people of the country than the difficult problem of the housing of our working poor. We have had to-day many interesting statistics and several facts which have confirmed that which we knew of our own knowledge and experience. No man, whatever his politics or position may be, can blind his eyes to the fact that around him are living thousands of toilers who, from no fault of their own, are residing in dwellings where they are overcrowded, where health must be interfered with, and where evil must often arise. The more we think of this question the more we realise—and I think we realise it even more after the able speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite—the immense difficulty of dealing with that problem. It is constantly growing, and no one can advance what may be a solution which will last for a great number of years with our constantly increasing population. But though the difficulties are great, I consider that it is the duty of the House to do what it can to meet those diffi-
1288
culties. I consider that time spent in this House, however long, on the question of how best to house our working classes is time spent on a question of the most vital importance to our countrymen. I have heard with regret the remarks of both the mover and the seconder of this Amendment, the one saying the Bill is a trifling one, and the other that it is not worth the paper on which it is written.
MR. STEADMAN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I was not giving my own opinions then; I was quoting the opinion of Mr. Blashill, the late architect of the London County Council.
SIR SAMUEL HOARE: To misrepresent the hon. Gentleman is the last thing I desire to do, but I thought he alluded to the Bill in his own words as useless; but perhaps I took that down wrongly. At any rate, the whole of his argument was based on his impression that this was not the way by which this great difficulty should be mot, and I quite respectfully admit that his views are matter for discussion. But I cannot take the same view with reference to the measure before the House. I cannot but believe that some of the difficulties would be remedied if even a smaller Bill than the present one was carried into an Act of Parliament. In order that I may explain my views I should like to ask the House to consider where past legislation has failed or where it does not meet the present requirements of the case. Allusions have been made to the cost and the great outlay required under previous legislation. I think it is summed up very well in a few words which I received in a letter from a gentleman well qualified to speak from municipal knowledge as to why the 1890 Act and previous legislation had not done what was required—
"Hitherto the action of public bodies has been concentrated in acquiring slums and erecting on the sites better buildings, a most costly operation, in most cases resulting in a contraction of the accommodation on account of the rents and the inability to provide dwellings for the very poor who have been de-housed."
The 1890 Act made provision for local authorities acquiring insanitary areas and erecting dwellings for the poor. There is no doubt that those areas have often been acquired at very great cost indeed, and one of the difficulties in many cities

1289
and towns has been that to acquire these areas and to erect suitable buildings involves a very heavy and serious cost, and where land is valuable it could not be otherwise. This Bill, small as it is, suggests, I think, a solution of one of the difficulties with which we have been constantly met. By acquiring land outside the municipal area it is possible to acquire it at a very much cheaper price than within the town or city. I believe there are many cities, where it is impossible to acquire land within the borough area except at a very great cost, which will take advantage of this Bill to acquire land three, four, or five miles away, where the people can live and enjoy the fresh air and a liberty which it is impossible for them to enjoy in their present circumstances. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment seems anxious that the Government should introduce into the Bill provisions for railway or other means of communication between any colony which may be started outside the borough area and the work to which the people have to attend. I should have thought myself that the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act and the conditions under which we allow legislation with reference to railways and tramways at the present time were almost sufficient to meet the hon, and learned Gentleman's wishes. In the first place, I cannot suppose that the municipal council would select a spot for the building of their houses for the working-classes at a place inaccessible to the town and inconvenient for the men who had to attend the town for their work. If they did so, they would find a considerable difficulty in getting tenants, and probably their scheme would prove, at any rate, not so useful as it might be. In all the tramway and railway Bills which now come before the House, we are most careful to see that provision is made for the proper accommodation of working people, and I am somewhat disappointed, to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman state that these clauses which we have again and again interposed into Bills practically do very little to solve the difficulty. I am at a loss to know what would be our position in London at the present time with our congested areas, terrible as they are, if we had not had the advantage of the cheap trains and trams. Those who see the thousands of working men who day
1290
by day enter Liverpool Street and the other great stations cannot but wonder how we should have managed to house these vast numbers of people if it had not been for these cheap railway trains. And the same applies to the tramways. It was suggested by the hon. and learned Member that this new traction power of electricity would very likely be of little use. I must say that that is not the view of the members of the London County Council at the present time, because it is only a few weeks ago that it was my lot to be serving on a Committee considering a Bill by which the London County Council applied for powers to have electric traction on their tramways, and certainly it was put before us that it would be of very great advantage to the working people of London. For that, amongst other reasons, the Bill was accepted. I believe, if there is a solution at all of this difficult problem, it is that as far as possible we should find not merely healthy houses, but healthy areas for our working people to live in. It does not follow because unhealthy buildings are pulled down that that area is a healthy area in which to erect working men's dwellings. It may be, and it often is, that it would be better to go further a field and allow the working people to enjoy that fresh air which we all value, and which I think they should have. In the centre of cities, where there is necessarily a congestion of houses, it is difficult to get that space which ought to be obtained; and I think, therefore, that the attempt to get land outside is most valuable. I only hope that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will be able to tell me that municipal councils need not necessarily be bound to a small amount of land, just enough for the buildings, but that they may acquire land sufficient, at any rate, to last for some years to come, so that we may not get again congested areas not inside, but outside our cities and towns. It would be desirable that they should be allowed to acquire certain space, so as to have a reserve in case of necessity. If these buildings are erected they must, of course, be erected so that the workers can get to their work possibly easier than they get to it now. But if these houses are erected where there is easy access to the work, should we not find some of those difficulties which have been suggested to the House at any rate less

1291
difficult to deal with? The question has been alluded to of the heavy cost and the compensation which is paid and has to be paid to those who own insanitary areas and dwellings. There is nobody, I think, who is interested in the position of our working people who can feel that a man under whose landlordism tenants have suffered should be heavily compensated for being the owner of that which the law condemns. But after the passing of this Bill would it be necessary to acquire these insanitary dwellings, to pull them down and re-build upon the site? If the Council are able to build proper dwellings outside their boundaries suitable for the working people, it would not be necessary for them to carry out those clauses of the Act of 1890 by which a scheme has to be propounded, put before the Local Government Board, considered, and then the purchase of the buildings and so on carried out. On the contrary, they would be able, under the 1890 Act, where there are insanitary dwellings, to have those dwellings condemned, and, if they thought necessary, pulled down, and sanitary dwellings erected in their place. Under that procedure there is no compensation to be paid. At present, there is compensation to be paid, because the municipal authority is compelled to make a scheme to acquire the insanitary areas and to build healthy buildings for the people who are de-housed. Therefore, I think that that question— although I quite admit it is an important one, and one well worth the consideration of the House—will to some extent be solved when the working people have better dwellings outside the municipal area. Then there is the question of rents. We are all well aware that in London and in many towns and cities the rents the working people pay are enormous in proportion to the amount of their earnings. We fully realise it. But these poor people are obliged to live in these ofttimes wretched tenements and to pay these heavy rents because they cannot get a habitation anywhere else. If dwellings are provided for them outside the area of the municipality I believe that many of them will rejoice to leave immediately these wretched buildings. Moreover, as now buildings are erected, the rents of these places should be materially reduced, or, at any rate, there should be great alterations. Therefore I think the power of giving our
1292
working classes an opportunity of living under more favourable circumstances should solve many of the difficulties which naturally cause us some doubts when we consider this question. Small as the Bill is, I believe it will be of great advantage if we pass it even as it is now. There is one point to which the hon. Member for Stepney alluded on which I should like to say a few words, namely, the question of loans—at what rate and for what periods loans should be raised for these undertakings. I feel that the money for this national work should be raised on the most favourable terms possible. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the country and the welfare of the nation that the working people should be properly housed, and facilities should be given for borrowing at the cheapest possible rate. I should be glad if the rate could be 2 or 2½ per cent. Then as to the period of repayment. The question of the repayment of loans for public works is one we have often before us in this House. In this matter I think we might relax the strict rules which have been laid down for other purposes. I cannot see why when land is acquired, whether in towns or in the country, we should look upon that as so uncertain a property that it must be paid for in our and the next generation, and handed over to our grandchildren as a property without any charge whatever upon it. In reference to land, there is really no necessity for having any limit whatever. One hundred years has been suggested, but I do not think it makes much difference whether you make it 100 years or allow the land to be treated as an asset of the corporation. The hon. Member alluded to the fact that the loans of the County Council in London are for sixty years. According to the Act of 1890 the borrowing powers are for fifty years, but the London County Council are under special Acts of their own and have special advantages. But I do think that fifty years is too short a time if substantial buildings are erected, and it would be well if that period were somewhat lengthened. If for the buildings the period of repayment was lengthened to sixty years, and for land to one hundred years or more, it would be a great help to carrying out the provisions of this Bill. It is necessary to make it easy, or, at any rate, as little difficult as possible, to municipal authorities to carry

1293
out the Act. Allusion Has been made to the fact that it is through no fault of their own that the poor are so badly housed in many places. No; it is through no fault of their own; they would willingly enjoy those comforts of a home such as those in better positions enjoy. A poor man's home is usually to his own mind just a little bit of furniture which he moves from tenement to tenement. I believe that is the universal description of a man's home. It is well that we should facilitate as far as possible the giving of opportunities for him to have a real home in which to live and bring up his children. No work that we can undertake can be greater or more important, but it is not a work that should be undertaken for a moment as a party work; it is merely a work of justice to our working classes. At the present moment they, with us, are sharing in the anxieties and the losses which rich and poor alike are bearing and experiencing in connection with the war. From them we draw many of our gallant defenders both in the Army and in the Navy, and in those dark alleys and courts there are many who deserve all that we can do to brighten their homes. This Bill may be a small one, it may be a trifling one; but at the same time if it does something to solve this difficulty —and perhaps the discussion this evening will help to solve it -it will have been useful. Amendments are proposed and suggested. I have always a fear of weighting a Bill, the principle of which is probably unanimously approved by the House. There are many of us who would wish to see something more put into the Bill; there are many of us who would be glad to go into the questions which have been alluded to and touched upon so ably this evening; but at the same time, it seems to me that a great step will have been taken in this matter if we give the power which is proposed in this Bill. I believe also that under Clause 2 there will be an encouragement given to provide better houses for our working classes in the country. This Bill is worthy of the support of this House, though, as I say, Amendments may be suggested. I can only hope that this question, whether now or at any future time, will never be treated as a party question. It is not a question of party at all. There may be points of a party character suggested as solutions, but the real question we have at heart is not a
1294
question of party at all; it is a question of the country; it is a question of everyone living in this land. The question is, can we brighten and make more healthy the lives of those on whom we are so dependent, and to whom we owe so much of the welfare of this country? If we are able to do that, even by a small Bill and to a small extent, we shall feel that some real movement has been made, and it may be that some of us will live to see working men's colonies growing up outside our cities and towns, and we shall be able to rejoice in that we have had a share, however small, in rendering more healthy, more contented, and more happy the lot of many thousands of hard-working people.
MR. BOND: Perhaps I am able to approach this subject from a more practical point of view than either of the hon. Gentlemen opposite succeeded in doing. I hope I shall not be considered egotistical by the House if I venture to say I have had some experience of this matter which justifies me in offering a few remarks upon a subject of this sort. I have been for sixteen or seventeen years chairman of a dwellings company, which I may say has not been an unsuccessful company, and I have also been concerned to a very considerable extent in the buying and selling of land in and near London and in other parts of the country. I think, therefore, I have at my disposal some of the elements for forming a good judgment upon the question. I will ask the House to bear with me while I put before them some views which perhaps may not be altogether palatable to the majority of those present. The importance of the question we are discussing can hardly be overrated. There can be no doubt whatever that there is a tremendous pressure on house accommodation in London. There is no doubt whatever that during even the last ten years the price of that accommodation has risen to a distressing extent. What are the causes of that rise? I can recollect that when first the company of which I have spoken began operations we were able to build a room of the accepted normal size occupying about 150 feet superficial area, and from 8½ feet to 9 feet in height, at from £55 to £60 apiece. We cannot build such a room now for less than from £85 to £95. The reason of that is that the wages in the

1295
building trade have been forced upwards and onwards to an almost unprecedented extent. I am not complaining of the trades unions or of the workmen for that; they are as well entitled as the most grasping landlord to get the most they can for that which they provide. We should all rejoice to see wages rising if the rise were general; but the rise in the building trade has been out of all proportion to the rise in wages in other departments of labour. The result is that not only is it more difficult, I might say impossible, to build new houses and to let them out at rents which the members of the working classes can afford to pay, but the fact that that is so and that no new houses can be built on remunerative terms, has enabled the landlords of the old houses already in existence to force up their rents to the level of those which have to be demanded for the new houses. Is there anything in this Bill which will tend to alleviate and mitigate this condition of things? I confess that neither in the Bill, nor in the vague proposals put forward in the Resolution we are now discussing, do I discover any glimmer of hope. It is suggested that land in the outskirts is cheaper than land in the centre of the towns. That is a fact which is patent to us all. It is suggested that if you take land in the outskirts of a town, say at £300 an acre, as compared with £10,000 an acre for land in the centre of the town, that you can afford to put up houses and let them at a cheaper rent than if you built them in the centre of the metropolis. That may be so, but there are other things which tend to make living in the suburbs as dear as living in the centre of the town. I have had some inquiries made as to the average ground rent which a workman would have to pay for the room he occupies. I find that such ground rent in the town would be about 15s. 3d. per room per year. Supposing you build a cottage on land at £300 per acre. The ground rent upon such a cottage will be a mere bagatelle, and will perhaps be only 3s. or 4s. a year per room. But this is the point I wish to urge upon the consideration of the House. Assuming that a man pays 15s. 3d. ground rent for his room in the centre of the town where he is near to his work, and where his expenses of going to and fro from his work will not mean more than 2d. or 3d. per week. If he lives in the outskirts he
1296
may have to pay 4d. a day for travelling. That means 2s. per week, or £5 4s. a year as against the larger ground rent which he would have to pay for the accommodation he requires in the town. To suggest to us that to make provision for municipal bodies to buy lands in the outskirts of the town outside their district in order to provide accommodation for the working classes in the metropolis or in our large towns is, I venture to say, another example of what I call the wooden nutmeg legislation of which we have always had a good deal, and of which we appear to be having a great deal more at the present time than has been noticeable for some time past. This question cannot be solved in that manner, nor can it be solved by increasing the facilities for cheap transit. Make your transit as cheap as you please, there will still have to be enough provided to pay the expenses of interest on the cost of construction, and to pay for rolling stock, and a reasonable sum for wear and tear. If you take all these expenses into account you cannot hope to get from that source any effective help in meeting the great question which we have to face. The cost of going to and fro daily will be far more than would, in my judgment, be saved in ground rent. Why should we encourage municipal bodies to go in for house speculation, for disguise it as you may, it will encourage them to do that? They cannot be bound to confine the occupation of their dwellings to men whose employment is in the town, and if that be so then you will find municipalities building houses which will not have the effect of relieving the congested population in the district from which the money comes to build the houses, and they will be merely providing houses, probably at considerable cost to the rates, for the inhabitants of a district quite outside that which finds the money. That cannot be the object which my right hon. friend has in view in bringing forward this Bill, but I am afraid that would be the result, supposing this Bill were put into operation in any large number of cases. It is very curious to observe the change which has passed over the spirit of this House in dealing with this matter. In the Consolidation Act of 1890 you will find provision made that a municipal body putting those Acts into operation and demolishing slums should

1297
not, in the first instance, build itself, and even if it did build itself it is to be under the obligation to part with the land after the lapse of a certain number of years. The legislature then in framing Acts dealing with this question, were alive to the mischiefs which unquestionably might follow the holding of a large amount of house property by municipal and popularly elected bodies. A change has come o'er the spirit of the dream, and it now seems the object of this Bill to push on municipalities not only in the direction of demolishing the slums, but after taking land and building houses to remain the owners of the houses they erect. That may be a change for the better, but in my judgment, it is a change in the direction of imprudence. The difficulties which this system would tend to produce in the case of a body such as the London County Council; the wrangling which it would cause, the tendency which certainly exists to make political capital out of this programme when an election comes on, and the pressure which I feel certain will be some day brought to bear upon candidates to pronounce themselves in favour of a reduction of rent in the buildings belonging to the locality, although such a reduction may involve a loss to the general ratepayers; these are considerations which should make us pause before we extend the area of municipal enterprise. These considerations apply with full force to the Bill which is now before the House, and it is because I attach great weight to these considerations and because I feel that, if the Bill is passed, it will do next to nothing to remedy the evil of overcrowding of which we are sensible, that I think the Bill had better not be passed into law. The mischiefs which we all recognise and deplore arise from economic causes, and are the result of economic laws which we cannot alter, and the effects of which we can only hope to imperfectly modify and alleviate. I know great progress has been made with regard to what is known as the social condition of the people during the past fifty years. Wages are higher at the present moment, and homes on the whole are healthier. There is, however, at the present moment, a recrudescence of that great difficulty of overcrowding which was noted by Lord Shaftesbury as one of the chief evils with which the poor of London had to contend. But even that evil, I
1298
believe, may be overcome in the long run as wages rise, as the standard of life improves, and as people become more and more capable of earning wages which will be sufficient to enable them to pay the economic rents which must inevitably be charged whatever palliatives and expedients the Legislature may resort to.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I will not criticise the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but I desire to allude to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, who preceded him. Everyone, I am sure, will recognise the sympathetic tone of that speech, and I think upon this side hon. Members will cordially re-echo his desire that this subject should not be treated as a party question. I was glad also to hear him say that he and many of his friends on the other side desired to put more into the Bill. It is very obvious that what he and his friends desire to do they can go a long way to effect by supporting this Amendment. We shall hope, therefore, to have their support in considering the Bill which is now before us. I heard with particular pleasure what the hon. Member for Norwich said about the repayment of loans in connection with the erection of dwellings. I think the present system is absolutely indefensible. What are we doing? We are compelling the tenants of these houses to pay not only rent, but also to pay, by instalments, the capital expenditure; and, therefore, in fairness it would seem that they or their successors at the end of sixty years ought to be the owners of the houses which they occupy. We know that that will not be the result, but they or those who succeed them will go on paying rents as before, whereas at the end of sixty years the community will come into possession of this valuable property. So far as the land is concerned, I understand that the hon. Member opposite, the Member for Norwich, whom I have always regarded as somewhat of a purist in these matters, is willing that the land should go as a kind of asset against the debt. With regard to the building he is also willing and is desirous that the period of repayment should be extended. For my part I think that period ought to be, at least, extended to one hundred years. Competent men tell us that, having regard to the manner in which

1299
houses are built by the London County Council, they will last, at, least, for one hundred and fifty or two hundred years, or oven more, so that it would not be unfair to the community that the period of repayment should be very considerably extended. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich said this was a national question. I admit that it is so, but as a London Member naturally I regard it specially from a London point of view, and anyone acquainted with London twenty years ago, and who is acquainted with London now, will be disposed to agree with me—I do not say over the whole of London, but over considerable areas — that the condition of the housing problem is more deplorable today than it was when the Housing Commission reported fifteen years ago. It is more deplorable in certain districts, and in comparatively large districts. It is very deplorable in these respects; first of all the rents to the poorest are much higher, and the area of high rents has extended. In the second place, overcrowding seems to be extending further from the centre of London towards the suburbs, and we have seen—as speakers who have preceded me have said— skilled and sober workmen in good employment and earning high wages absolutely unable to find housing accommodation, who have been reduced to taking their wives and children to the workhouse, leaving them there, and offering to pay for their maintenance. My hon. and learned friend who opened this debate referred to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I should like, if the House will allow me, to give two or three words from an official report of the existing state of things in Bethnal Green. This is the report of Mr. Foot, the Chief Inspector to the Bethnal Green Vestry. He says—
"There are absolutely no empty houses or empty rooms to put the people into, and the only result of serving notices for the abatement of over crowding and following them up with proceedings will be that a large number of people will have to be put into the street, there being insufficient housing accommodation for them, even in their overcrowded state in the parish. … I have made inquire respecting the. increase of rents, and I finds that the houses in these streets originally let at 9s. and 9s. 6d. per week. Some time ago the rents were increased to 11s. and 11s. 6d. per week. Soon after the present owners took possession these were again increased to 18s., 19s., and 19s. 6d. per week. This increase of rents has now become general in the district. The question
1300
appears to be fast approaching a climax, as, what with the alien emigration, the insufficient housing accommodation, and the enormously high rents, it is no longer with in the reach of working men earning ordinary labourers' wages to [provide decent housing accommodation."
That is the official authoritative account of the present condition of things in Bethnal Green, and I think a very similar condition of things would be found to exist in the neighbouring parishes in the East of London. In my own constituency the London County Council has made a great experiment in the housing problem upon a very large scale, and I think that that experiment in the Boundary Street area shows in a most remarkable manner the shortcomings of our present housing-legislation. In my hand I hold the document which was issued by the London County Council upon the occasion when H.R.H. the Prince of Wales formally opened the Boundary Street area a few weeks ago. In this document the London County Council describes in glowing colours what it has achieved in that part of London. It describes first the condition of the Boundary Street area when the London County Council took it in hand. It describes the rotten houses in an area reeking with filth and disease. In one sweeping phrase it describes the place as "a sink of iniquity and forcing-bed of crime." Then in the same document the London County Council tell us that for what they describe as a "sink of iniquity and forcing-bed of crime," they had to pay no less a sum than a quarter of a, million sterling. That amounts to about £300 for every family removed. Is that policy to continue? I am afraid that unless more effectual steps are taken than are proposed by this Bill, that policy will continue with the same unfortunate results. I find on page 15 of this Return that the London County Council has in hand six more schemes of this kind, and that in respect of these schemes it is going to pay the owners of insanitary property upon what appears to be an even more lavish scale than the Bethnal Green owners received. There is the Garden Row (St. Luke's) scheme, the net cost of which is estimated at £145,000, or over £600 per family. There is the Aylesbury Place (Clerkenwell) scheme, where the net cost is to be £190,000, or £675 per family. The Webber Row (Southwark) scheme will cost £153,000, and this works out at £845 per family. It must be remembered that these totals do not include a single

1301
sixpence to reimburse the cost of rehousing these poor people. What will be the result of all this, judging from what has occurred in Bethnal Green? The result will be that the people turned out will crowd into the neighbouring districts, and they will make places which are already overcrowded still more overcrowded in the future. As the Member for Stepney said a moment ago, the people housed in the Boundary Street area are not the class of people we desire to help the most. This experiment has been attended with a most unfortunate result. A few years ago there was a great movement of the working classes from Bethnal Green and the neighbourhood out into the country around Leytonstone and Walthamstow. I know from my own personal observation that many of the people who a few years ago went out into the country to those districts, as I thought very much to their advantage and to the advantage of their families, have now come back to the Boundary Street area. I inquired from them why they came back, and they said that they could not stand the jerry-built houses in the suburbs, and consequently they came back to Bethnal Green, because the houses of the London County Council are so well built. I have ventured to describe to the House the character of some of the schemes for clearing insanitary areas, which will have the result of throwing a very large, and I submit a most unjust, burden upon the ratepayers of London. But there is one scheme which is about to be taken in hand by the London County Council which I regard with great satisfaction, and which I think points in the direction towards which we should look for a remedy. That scheme is the Nightingale Street scheme, Marylebone, and deals with the property of Lord Portman, who is the freeholder. The area is to be cleared by an arrangement between the London County Council and Lord Portman, under Section 6 of the Housing Act of 1890, which provides that a scheme may be carried out by the freeholder under the superintendence and control of the local authority, and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed. Lord Portman, very much to his credit, came under this section, and he and the London County Council working-together are to effect the clearance. The London County Council is to use its statutory powers, and Lord Portman is
1302
to defray the cost, and the result of this will be that you will have this insanitary area cleared and decent houses erected on it without costing the ratepayer's sixpence. That is done by voluntary arrangement under Section 6 of the first part of the Housing Act of 1890. But what I should like very respectfully to impress on the House is that what a good landlord and an honourable man is ready to do voluntarily a bad landlord ought to be compelled to do, and that we ought to make the substance, at all events, of Section 6 compulsory, so that it may be possible to compel a landlord to do what Lord Portman is now doing by voluntary arrangement. There is, perhaps, one other suggestion to which I might refer, not because on the face of it is a very large question, but it is one which I think would be very useful. It has been advocated by a gentleman who knows the East End of London well—the Rev. Samuel Barnett. I do not know whether the suggestion emanated from him, but he strongly supports it, and it is that we should have in London a registration of owners. At the present time there are many cases in which it is absolutely impossible to make the owner responsible. An inquiry was recently held with regard to some property off the Strand, and one of the tenants was asked to whom he paid his rent. He said he did not know, and it afterwards came out in evidence that the tenants had no idea who their landlord was, but that every week someone came round and signed for the rent with in pencil in an ordinary penny rent - book which was given to each tenant, and there was absolutely no means of ascertaining who the landlord was. That is a very common state of things in London, and several cases have come within my own personal knowledge where owing to rotten flooring a tenant has suffered personal injury for which he would have a right of action against the owner but where it has been found impossible to obtain any remedy for the injured person, because no one could ascertain who the landlord was. Under the circumstances which have been described to the House, the Bill which the Government introduced seems to me to be scandalously inadequate to deal with the enormity of the mischief. My hon. and learned friend suggested that under the existing law it is competent for a local authority to go outside its area, but I do not know

1303
whether it is desirable that the London County Council should build outside London except in connection with clearance schemes. A clearance scheme is carried out under Part 1 of the Act. It requires a Provisional Order in each ease, and therefore it is quite possible for the London County Council to get Parliamentary power to build outside London in such cases. I have said this is not only a London question, but a national question. I have, although I will not trouble the House with them, details of the enormity of this mischief in all parts of the country, such as Chester, and other large towns, where people are often housed under conditions in which a decent man would be unwilling to kennel his dog. There is one part of the country which I wish specially to refer to, and which has special claims on the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary—I mean the present condition of the housing question in Birmingham. In a leading article recently a Birmingham paper stated that—
"in Birmingham men, women, and children were herded together like cattle in a truck, with every encouragement for disease and crime. Custom will do everything in time, and gradually the moral fibre of the people is sapped, self-respect is destroyed, and all regard for morals is lost."
These statements ought to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I express the hope that he will recognise that this question is of vital importance and a matter which ought to be first in our considerations in the interests of the welfare and prosperity of the people of these islands.
MR. MIDDLEMORE: I have sometimes tried to clear my mind with regard to the many intricate problems connected with the housing of the poor, and I have endeavoured to remember that there are two forms of overcrowding; I mean that form which is imposed by the habits of the people who are overcrowded, and that form which is imposed by circumstances which they cannot possibly control. The two are, of course, associated, but perfectly distinct, and they can easily be distinguished by persons who have studied the question. Let me illustrate what I mean by my own personal experience. I have visited houses having three bedrooms, only one of which was occu-
1304
pied; I have visited houses with two, three, and even four bedrooms, and no bedroom at all was occupied. The whole family was congregated in what is termed the living room. Of course, that is easily explained. There has been drunkenness, there has been improvidence, there has been imprisonment, there has been desertion, there has been illness, and there has been death. That is a condition in which there is overcrowding, but not over-peopling, and people live year after year and decade after decade under such circumstances, and, with their perverted tastes, they really prefer insanitary squalor, and certainly do not appreciate the advantage of better housing. There is no scheme—not the scheme which is now proposed, not the Guinness scheme—that can possibly effect that particular class. You cannot touch that residuum that really prefers foul to fair conditions, and they can only be dealt with in one way, and that is by pulling down the rookeries in which they live. They are the criminal and hopeless class who inevitably shun light, shun air, and shun space, and if the conditions under which they live were destroyed we should undoubtedly destroy also that which makes them a distinct and separate class. The present Bill, of course, increases the powers of the municipalities. The all important fact to recognise is that the supply of decent homes for the working classes is utterly inadequate, and we know that humanity cannot develop under the conditions in which millions live in this country. We know what these conditions are. There is the pall of smoke and the dingy glimpse of sky between brick walls, and people who live in these houses are out of touch with nature. There are houses in which many of us would not stable our horses, and the people who inhabit them must necessarily undergo degeneration. Whether one is a Socialist or an Individualist, one must recognise two conditions that are affirmed as clearly as circumstances can affirm them. The first is that the accommodation is inadequate, and the other that the rents are too high. It must be recognised also that the ordinary law of supply and demand has failed in this particular, and has landed us in great disaster. The supply is less than the demand. One thing mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite was that the infant mortality in these crowded areas

1305
was frightful. Juggernaut himself might have been guilty of it. One has only to compare the mortality in other districts and it will be found that the infant mortality in these areas is more than fourfold. I think the present Bill is a good Bill as far as it goes, but I cannot help agreeing with hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is a very little Bill. Well, I am thankful for it. It imposes duties on the municipalities and others, but it gives them very inadequate means of carrying out these duties. In a circular issued by the Local Government Board the housing question is referred to as a great and pressing question, and the circular proceeds—
"We cannot avoid the conclusion that a large number of the working classes of this country are at the present time housed in houses either unfitted for human habitation or in such a condition as to be distinctly prejudicial to the health of the inmates."
I think that after such unimpassioned words the Government should urge on the local authorities the necessity for using the power conferred on them. I should wish especially to refer to one point in connection with the Bill. Under the Local Government Act the law only sanctions loans for the period of fifty years, and according to the provisions of the various Housing Acts, a loan cannot be sanctioned for more than sixty years. My contention is that interest and sinking fund should extend to ninety-nine or one hundred years. Why should it not? The municipalities can offer good security. They have land of increasing value, and they have houses which will he kept in good repair; but, even if the security were less admirable, the nation is now becoming conscience stricken, and security not so good would probably be accepted. Let me explain this matter. It has cost us in Birmingham £200 to build a decent dwelling for a working man. If the period of repayment is fifty years, the rent we have to charge simply to cover the charge for interest and sinking fund is 3s. a week. But if the period of repayment was ninety-nine or one hundred years we could reduce the rent to 2s. 5¼d., and so save 7d. a week to the working man, to whom even a penny a week makes a considerable difference, at any rate in the provinces. I am going to appeal to the Government to give the municipalities a somewhat freer hand in this matter, and to give them a better opportunity of carrying out their duties. I am going to
1306
ask them to accept an Amendment which I shall move if it is not moved by any other hon. Member, to provide that the period of repayment of interest and sinking fund for loans under the Act shall be increased from fifty years to ninety-nine.
MR. STUART: I would not have risen now had it not been that I see the President of the Local Government Board in his place, and I wish to address a few remarks to him. Taking that particular view of my functions for a moment, I will not enter into the grievous circumstances which we have to deal with. They have been admirably described by previous speakers, and I am sure are viewed with the deepest sympathy by the whole House. There can be no doubt whatever that we are all agreed that we have to deal in overcrowding with one of the most grievous circumstances which at present afflict humanity. As to the present Bill, I have no doubt whatever that the proposal to give power to municipalities or councils to purchase land outside their own boundaries for the purpose of exercising Part 3 of the Housing of the Poor Act is right and proper. I wish to say that distinctly, but when I have said that I must say I do not think it is a step which deals with the root of the matter. It is a useful and proper step, and I therefore should be glad to see this Bill as it is passed into law, but so little do I expect from its operations that as an alternative I should rather prefer to see the House lose the Bill by assenting to the proposal of my hon. and learned friend. In other words, I believe that the adhesion of the House to the general principle embodied in the amendment of my hon. and learned friend would be more valuable in procuring good results as regards the housing of the people than if this Bill were passed as it is. I agree entirely with the proposal that where buildings are good the period of repayment of the loan should be 100 years; I believe that would be a right and proper reform. I believe also that another right and proper reform would be that the value of the land taken as appropriate for working men's dwellings—which is not the same as the value of the land in the open market—ought not to require a sinking fund. But these reforms, right and proper though they be would give

1307
very little relief indeed as regards the housing of the poor. The housing question, so far as we are treating it just now is largely a question of rent. What would be the effect on the rent of the changes that are now suggested, and which I hope and earnestly trust will be embodied in the present Bill? Let us not imagine that we are doing very great things towards the solution of this problem. If you take the schemes of the London County Council, and if you ask how- much of every 20s. charged as rent to the tenant is for the sinking fund in connection with the buildings, and how much is for the sinking fund in connection with the land, taking the general result of the London schemes, and taking more particularly the Boundary Street scheme at Bethnal Green, the figures I am now about to give are correct in either case. Out of every 20s. of rent 2s. only are necessary for providing the sinking fund. You will see that there is no room for any great alleviation. There is a certain alleviation to be got from that point of view, no doubt, but a greater is to be obtained from a reduction of the interest generally. Now, take that 2s. which, out of the 20s. of rent, is attributable to the sinking fund—how much of it is required for the sinking fund and the land? In the Boundary Street Bethnal Green scheme only 4d. would be required, because the price of the land is to be cleared off in sixty years. While the principle is thoroughly good, therefore, it is no solution of the difficulty. Still from that point of view I shall propose Amendments on the Bill in Committee which will introduce these savings. I want the House, however, to understand what are the limits both of the Bill and of these Amendments. There is no greater mistake when dealing with a question such as this than to go off on a general declaration as to the evils of society. We assume these; we all admit them; we thoroughly feel them. But we do not want to extend the glamour of misrepresentation about what is to be effected by a certain class of reforms and the principles which we strongly support. There is another point, which has not been touched upon, which I should like to bring before the right hon. Gentleman, but which is of very great consequence to London and to some large provincial towns if it were only looked
1308
into. We in London have undertaken a number of improvements and erected working class dwellings under various parts of the Act. It is not uncommon that when, under the first two parts of the Act, we have made a clearance of insanitary dwellings, or have made a street improvement and thereby have removed a certain number of the working classes from their houses, we have found ourselves unable to re-house them on the area where they formerly lived and have had to go, under Part III. of the Act, to a certain distance from that area. I shall certainly be glad if under the present Bill we are enabled to go not only to another place within the county, but on the margin, or even beyond it. But in either case there is another difficulty. Under the Clare Market scheme and the clearances for the Strand improvement we were unable to erect houses required for the dispossessed tenants on that area for certain reasons. Had we been allowed to erect the workmen's dwellings in that area we should have had the power to include in that scheme all the expenses of clearing the area, and would have been able to recoup ourselves under the street improvement scheme for a large portion of the expense. But when we go away under Part III. of the Act, and substitute Milbank for Clare Market for building the work men's dwellings on, we are not allowed to set against the price of the land at Milbank the price of the land we leave behind us at Clare Market. Now, the Milbank land cost us £60,000 but we have to leave behind us the Clare Market land, which is worth £20,000 for the same purpose of building workmen's dwellings. I say that we ought to be allowed to set aside that £20,000 as an asset to reduce the price of £60,000 which we have paid for the Milbank site. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow us, as a matter of accounting, to place the saving we make in the street improvement as an asset to relieve the cost of the housing scheme. That is an extremely important matter. I turn to another point—and here I am dealing rather with the Amendment than with the Bill. We shall never by this Bill get at the root of the business, until you throw the responsibility upon the different classes of landlords—either freeholders, leaseholders or rent-holders— of insanitary property. I do not want to speak at large on this question; I

1309
do not want to declaim against the wicked landlord. There are good landlords as well as bad landlords. I want to bring this matter to a question of figures. We are all familiar with the Boundary Street scheme at Bethnal Green, opened by the Prince of Wales the other day. Well, the London County Council, in order to procure the complete property in their hands and clear that insanitary area, had to pay in round figures £350,000. After the insanitary houses were cleared away and the area made a tabula rasa the value of that ground in the open market was only £150,000. They dropped £200,000 straight with having to compensate freeholders, leaseholders, and other persons interested in that insanitary property. The next step was to clear the area, for which £350,000 had been paid, and which is worth £150,000 in the open market. But with the obligation of erecting workmen's dwellings on it it is only worth £60,000, and the whole difference between £60,000 and £350,000 has had to be put upon the general rates of London. In other words, about five-sixths of the whole is swept away in procuring that site. What we are asking is not to put any sinking fund upon it in consideration of the rent we ought to charge for the houses. The houses we are erecting on the site will cost £250,000, and thus there is a total expenditure of £310,000 for which the County Council must recoup itself by means of rent. It is a very heavy rent. We cannot give a, three-roomed house for less than 8s. or 9s. per week. Compare that with 4s. 3d. for a five-roomed house and garden, which a workman may obtain in a country town, and see the terrible trouble and expense which the London workman is put to. He has to pay a double rent, and his higher wage presents itself to the country at large as an attraction to London, and poor countrymen only think that if they could get up to London they would be so much better off. It is by that false position that workmen are attracted to London in large numbers, and yet find themselves worse off when they get there. I want to come to the point as to how we could better the situation. I want to save the ratepayers of London the £300,000 which have been dropped altogether before the land was made fit for workmen's houses—a sum equal to the whole capital value of the land and new houses. I
1310
speak from many years experience of this matter, not only in connection with the London County Council and in provincial centres, and in my private capacity as well as a public representative. I hold, then, that we must bring home in some way responsibility to those who get the rents originally out of insanitary property. In the first place, we ought to allow, indeed to compel, the freeholder to enforce those clauses in his lease which relate to keeping the houses in good substantial repair and sanitary condition. Then we ought to put the same obligation on each landlord under the freeholder, for everybody knows that in London there is a succession of landlords. To impose and enforce that obligation alone on the superior landlord would be an extremely effective means of securing the sanitary state of the houses, and of avoiding the necessity of the County Council, or of any other public authority dealing with the matter at all. This would meet the objection of some hon. Members who do not want the interference of the municipalities in housing projects. But supposing the landlord does not adequately fulfil that obligation, or neglects it entirely, and the area is declared under the Act of Parliament to be an insanitary area. Then the freeholder should have the right at once to re-enter upon the whole property. That would be a means of keeping in order the other landlords. Then the freeholder should be under the obligation, which may fairly be put upon him (because the whole state of things could have only arisen from his neglecting his obligations), of himself erecting workmen's dwellings upon that area. Again, if the freeholder does not choose to carry out that obligation the county council or municipality should then have leave to enter upon the place, paying him the sum which the land would be worth for workmen's dwellings, and take upon itself the obligation of erecting workmen's dwellings on the area. I commend these proposals to the right hon. Gentleman as well worthy of careful consideration. There is nothing wild or impractical about them, but I feel that they require serious consideration, and I offer them as my contribution towards the more effective solution of the housing problem than can be achieved by the Act, or even by the Bill with the Amendments proposed to be introduced in it. We cannot expect in this closely packed nation to

1311
solve the housing question all at once. I am glad, on an occasion like this, that we try to solve it with no party feeling. I have avoided any reference to party considerations, and I would scorn to make any political capital as to whether the right hon. Gentleman's Bill is too little or too modest. We ought to be constantly moving towards the solution of the question. We have hung fire far too long. An hon. Member has asked me why it is that the covenants in the leases are not enforced. I leave that for others to clear up; all I say is they are not enforced. I know of nothing which is more disturbing to the economic conditions of the country, as well as to the social life, the moral well being, and the physical health of the country than the present bad condition of the housing of the working classes. I am glad that the misery of London has not yet eaten into the vitals of other cities, although such misery is to be found in many of them, and even in some of our country villages. In London more particularly are we the victims of economic conditions. We cannot reverse economic conditions, but we can do what has been the glory of the human race for thousands of years, we can struggle to improve economic conditions, and to mould nature to our own requirements. Nature's laws are unalterable, but we can mould the operation of these laws.
MR. DRAGE: I desire earnestly to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Shields, which embodies the view I have already supported at the International Congress at Brussels. I hold the opinion that the two reforms proposed in the Bill are important, but they only cover a small part of the ground which I venture to think Her Majesty's Government ought to have tried to cover in dealing with this question. I suppose the Amendment rests on the idea that with the present Act, if properly administered, much more good could be done. It rests further on the idea that the conditions of the working classes are improving, and also that there is a desire, which is no doubt always foremost in the minds of administrators, not to go too fast in this great work. We can admit at once that the Act of Parliament which the local authorities are administering is excellent. At Brussels I recollect foreign representatives had no expressions too
1312
strong in which to commend the Act dealing with the question of the housing of the working classes in this country. But there are administrative difficulties which I think the Government might have attempted to cope with in the present Bill. The chief and foremost difficulty in the administration of the present Act lies in the fact that the local sanitary officers in town and country are insufficiently paid, and are removable at the wish of the local authorities. I have here a number of Reports, both public and private, with which I do not desire to trouble the House. There is, among others, the Report of the Local Government Board of July, 1897, pointing out the very small and inadequate salaries of from £15 to £30 a year which are paid by the local sanitary authorities, and which are too little to enable the medical officer of health to be independent. It is not the fault of the sanitary authority. It is a fault which will remain until the Government insert in their Bill some provision to make the medical officer entirely independent of private practice. I venture to suggest another point of great importance in this connection. We have not got any opportunity of reviewing the working of this most important Act. On more than one occasion I have tried to bring this matter up on the Estimates, that course being really the only one we have, but the question is so narrowed down that it is only possible to touch the fringe of it. I think provision should be made whereby we would be enabled from year to year to discuss the administrative difficulties to which I have referred, and to bring before the House some of the abuses we desire to see remedied. I will not go into the details referred to by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the debate. I deprecate with him any attempt at exploiting the sensational aspect of this question; it is enough for | me to quote, with respect to houses in the country districts, the words of the final Report of the senior assistant commissioner of the Labour Commission, Mr. William Little, who is perhaps the greatest authority on this question in the country. He uses the following words—
"A large proportion of the cottages are below the proper standard of decency, and many of them are vile and deplorably wretched dwellings."
There are even stronger words by another official, Mr. Wilson Fox, who

1313
conducted an inquiry extending over many districts in England, Wales, and Ireland. He writes—
"Many of the houses are more fit for animals to inhabit than men and women, and in them no human being could be either happy or contented."
We hear a great deal about the sensational writing in the press. I doubt whether, in the articles that have appeared in one of the great London newspapers, any stronger language has been used, or any language that has been more thoroughly proved to be true than that. The inquiries made have now extended over ten years, and show the following defects in the country districts. In the first place the houses are inadequate in number, and too distant from the work the labourers have to perform; the repairs are in bad condition; the overcrowding of which the hon. Gentleman opposite complains with respect to the towns is also bad in the country; the sanitary accommodation is as bad as it can be; and the water supply is so deficient as to be a disgrace to a civilized country. On all these points there is conclusive and voluminous evidence— and I doubt whether the representatives of the Government are prepared to deny it—that reform is urgently called for. In the Report of the Labour Commission, Mr. Wm. Little and Mr. Wilson Fox, who is now at the head of the Labour Department, lay the greatest possible stress on the importance of obtaining a Return of all houses in country districts let at rentals of less than £10 a year. The Return was to be made compulsory on owners, and it was to give details as to overcrowding, the number of persons in each room, the sanitary accommodation, the water supply, and the state of repair. A year or so ago I moved for such a Return in this House, but the Government said they could not grant it. If that Return was made as suggested by the Labour Commissioners, and if it was compulsory, the expense would be infinitesimal. As hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, it is easy for a private Member to get up and propose this, but unless the Government is willing to grant the Return the motion is not likely to be adopted. There is a further proposal which I am afraid will not be altogether approved of by hon. Members opposite, but which I hope may have some approval on
1314
this side of the House. That is the proposal contained in the final Report of the senior Commissioner of the Labour Commission that loans should be granted to landowners for the purpose of building cottages. As the House is aware, cottages are bad at present. You practically invest £130 in a cottage. That is the lowest amount for which a fairly good cottage can be built, and if lot at 1s. 6d. a week to a farm labourer, the rent of the dwelling would be about £4 a year. This includes no expenditure for rates, taxes, and insurance. It is suggested that loans should be granted to landowners for the purpose of building these cottages. I would suggest to the House that good security could be obtained from the landlord by insuring his life or otherwise. One of the great difficulties we are face to face with in the country districts is that we are not sure where to place the cottages. So much for the question of housing in the country districts. Now one word with regard to the question in boroughs. Here, again, I do not propose to give any sensational details to the House. I do not think the picture has been painted in too lurid colours. If a local authority is to build houses in outside districts, it appears to me that some greater travelling facilities are necessary. I should prefer them to be undertaken in the form of tramways rather than by laying a greater burden on the railways. I am neither a shareholder nor a director of a railway, but it seems rather hard that in some of these problems, which are national problems, we should lay the burden of having to pay the piper on small bodies of shareholders. I submit that in this case, where a municipality could undertake some part of the work, it is fairer that, by tramways or by some other means, rapid transit should be organised by them. I support the proposals made on the other side with regard to the registration of the owners of insanitary property. I believe that in town as in country districts landlords of insanitary property are often ignorant of the conditions under which their tenants live, and that they would make greater efforts if they were publicly notified of the condition of their property. I am aware that there are serious difficulties in the way of such administration, but I do not think these difficulties are so great that they cannot be overcome. I thoroughly agree with the proposals made

1315
on the other side of the House in regard to the expropriation of certain owners. I cordially agree with the proposal that loans should be issued at a cheaper rate. But, after all this has been said and done, there comes another question, which has been raised by one of the Members for Nottingham. If we carry out a proposal of this kind, how far are we likely to discourage that great and definite source of reform—private enterprise? It seems to me the time has come for careful inquiry by a Select Committee, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that, if he is unable, in the form in which this Bill has been drawn up, to incorporate some of the reforms we urge, he should appoint a Select Committee to go into the subject, with the view to having introduced, either this session or next session, an extended Bill. Reference has been made this evening to the subject of the wages of the working classes, and to the rise which has occurred in those wages. I should like to point out that with regard to casual labour there has been actually no rise in the monetary value, though it is perfectly true that in what is called "real" wages—that is, not only the monetary value but the purchasing power—there has been some rise oven in regard to casual labour. But that rise has been more than counterbalanced by the rise in the amount the workman has to pay as rent. Reference has been made to the fact that workmen in London and the large towns and cities pay far too large a proportion of their wages in rent. I need not go into figures with regard to that, but there is one point which has not been raised. Every year labourers who live in bad houses lose a very large number of their days for work. It is calculated that at the very lowest computation a casual labourer who is badly housed loses twenty days work in the year. I need not go further into that, but I may remind the House as a justification of the proposals I have put forward that it is idle to educate the children, idle to have advanced forms of primary education, if when the children leave those magnificent buildings which have been provided for education, they have to go back into the slums which have been so well described in the House to-night. Moreover, with bad houses you have an
1316
enormous increase in the death rate, of pauperism and vice. Proper housing means economy in hospitals, economy in prisons, economy in poor houses, so that a large expenditure in this direction repays itself. I feel I have trespassed too long on the indulgence of the House, but this is a subject to which I have given a great deal of attention for many years past. I never approach these questions from a party point of view, but I have given pledges to my constituents on the subject, and whether it is a party question or not one must stand up to one's pledges in this House.
MR. PRICE: I think that all will agree that the debate this evening has been an extremely valuable one. We have had many weighty speeches from both sides of the House, and I should think the Government, after listening to those speeches, must almost have come to the conclusion that the Bill is too small a one. The point upon which I particularly wish to speak is with regard to the rural districts. We have had many speeches upon the urban side of the question, but the rural side is also very important. I believe that a comparatively small amendment in this Bill would result in some real value being given to it as regards the working classes in the country districts. The problem there is a very difficult one. The movement of population is not very great, but still it does occur. In districts which have been arable, but are turned to grass land, the population tends to diminish, while in other places, where some small rural industry arises, you get an increase of population. Our immense difficulty is that cottage property does not pay the private individual, and consequently in almost every rural district there are places which are under-housed, and where proper cottage accommodation cannot or is not provided by voluntary effort. The fact was perfectly well recognised before, and the Act of 1890 was passed in some measure to supply the deficiency, and it was the intention of that Act to enable the rural sanitary authorities to supply the deficiency by building under certain precautions and conditions cottages in those districts where such accommodation could not otherwise be obtained. The practical result of the Act of 1890 has been that, although there are hundreds of villages

1317
where cottage accommodation is badly needed, and where the district authorities thoroughly appreciated the position, and had every wish to build if they conveniently could, the machinery has been so cumbersome that in only one instance— or, at any rate, in very few instances— have the provisions of the Act been put into force. There are too many authorities to be consulted. If some one authority had the matter in hand without any appeal to another authority, there would be a very good chance of the Act being put into force in districts where it could be done economically and properly. My own experience has been that district councils are sufficiently near to the electorate to be moved by the popular wants, and to be willing to incur the risk, whatever it may be, of building houses where they are wanted. In every case which has been brought under my own notice, very excellent intentions have been frustrated by the appeal which now exists to the county council. When this Bill was published I looked with the greatest anxiety to see if anything was proposed to remove the incubus of the county council from the shoulders of the district council, but to my great sorrow I found that practically no change was contemplated. Clause 2 simplifies the language, and to that extent it is an improvement. It does away with a certificate, and with the necessity of renewing the certificate. But the appeal to the county council is here in its integrity as before. It is a positive insult to the district councils, which are important bodies, to have to go to the county council in this way. They know quite as well as the county council can know whether new dwellings are required, whether there is any probability of them being built by private enterprise, and whether it is prudent for them to undertake whatever liability or risk there may be on the rates. But the burden on the rates would not be very great. I have had some experience of building cottages in Norfolk. At a place called Roxham there was a call for cottages, and the district council was perfectly prepared to undertake the risk of providing accommodation for the very numerous cottagers for whom it was required. The county council sent down their chairman to investigate the matter, and although he was, I believe, satisfied as to the facts, that inquiry was terminated by somebody
1318
appearing willing to build some cottages, but which, in point of fact, were never erected. Some £15 or £20 houses were built, which, of course, were of no use for the working classes. The matter grew so serious that I felt bound to do something and I built six cottages to relieve the congestion. The financial results were such as might encourage the district council to do likewise without incurring much loss. Any Member of Parliament who is building in his own constituency does not, as a rule, get the work done more cheaply than other people. The total cost to me of those six cottages, including the purchase of land and the sinking of a well, was £850—£120 apiece for the cottages and £100 for the land, legal expenses, and sinking a well. For those cottages I get £5 10s. each, that is, £33 per annum; they are five-roomed cottages, with small hall and proper accommodation at the back; and I have never had an empty cottage. I calculate that I get 2½ per cent. on my money, which is £21 5s., and after paying rates and taxes I have a balance of £6 15s. towards empties and repairs. I think that is a fairly sound financial position.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): Is that recently?
MR. PRICE: Quite recently—three or four years ago—the prices of buildings have, I suppose, slightly increased since then. [An HON. MEMBER: Enormously.] They have not increased so much in that particular district. But precisely the same argument used to be used four years ago as to the utter hopelessness of building and letting at a profit. If the district council, instead of myself, had built those cottages, they would have made a much better return, because they would not have had to pay any rates. I do not think they are exempt from income tax. And further, when they build in a place they pro tanto increase the general value of the whole place. If there is a good population of labouring workingmen the general condition of the neighbourhood is improved. The farmer has a better supply of labour if there is a good supply of cottages in the neighbourhood. He can then afford to pay more rent, and that means more rates, and if the neighbourhood is well supplied with cottages it adds to the freedom of the

1319
position, and on the whole the place is worth more rateably than it would be at other times. Consequently, I say that a rural district authority would do better than I have done with my cottages, because they would get very nearly something under 3½ per cent. It would cost them, perhaps, a little bit more, and in all probability they would be slight losers on the transaction. The loss, however, would be infinitesimal, and if you take it on those cottages the loss per annum would have been very small indeed. There are, of course, other considerations which must appeal to any district council in building. It would not be wise for them to build cottages for a population which may be quite ephemeral and disappear. I do say emphatically that the very small pecuniary risk is one which they are perfectly able to take without any fear of stupid things being done. If you are going always to assume that your local governing bodies are going to be composed of a lot of noodles who do not know that two and two make four, you will never get that principle of local government which nearly all of us want to see established. If the Government would make this Act simpler by giving the district councils in the urban districts this power unfettered by the county council, as they are under the Act of 1890, we should really have a perceptible improvement in our cottage accommodation in the rural districts. I am conscious that this proposal does not end the matter, and it will not redress all the evils. It does not account for the bad cottages and insanitary dwellings, but what I have suggested would be a very perceptible improvement, and I trust that before this Bill leaves the Committee the Government will see their way to meet us in that particular. I hope the Government will accede to the request made by the last speaker for a Select Committee. If the Bill was a large one I should not ask for a Select Committee, and it is only because I think such a Committee would widen the scope of the Bill that I suggest it. If we can, while we are not so busy in Parliament, do something to improve the condition of the houses in rural as well as urban districts, then Parliament will not have laboured in vain.
COLONEL HUGHES: I have taken a. great deal of interest in this sub-
1320
ject, and the question has been very frequently under discussion. I think the London County Council, for the last ten years, have rather neglected this housing problem, and although they have acquired insanitary areas, I believe that only about five per cent. of the original dwellers have ever come back to the new houses, and this policy has rather increased overcrowding among the poor people than alleviated it. They make the excuse that they cannot get land in London. They say: "Give us the power to go outside London, where we can get land in greater quantities and much cheaper." This Bill has been brought in to meet a want expressed by the London County Council itself. Power to build houses of this kind was given to the borough councils, and I believe they will put the Act into operation if they have land in their borough. If they have it not already, I think the borough councils also ought to have the power to go into the adjoining parishes outside the county.
MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, they have that power under the Bill.
COLONEL HUGHES: At Woolwich, for instance, there is a place near (the parish of Erith) where land is cheaper. I understand, then, that according to the provisions of this Bill, Woolwich could build houses for the working classes in the adjoining parish. The London County Council are anxious to find land, if possible, in London to accommodate this want. The Government express themselves heartily in sympathy with the supplying of this requirement. It has been the theme of election addresses of even many Cabinet Ministers that this housing question deserves the greatest attention. In the parish of Eltham, within my constituency, there is only one and a half persons to the acre, and Eltham is in London. Let me emphasise this point. In that parish there are 1,700 acres of land belonging to the Crown. That land is now let at about £2 10s. per acre as agricultural laud. Here there are 1,700 acres of land in London beautifully situated on the southern side of Shooters Hill. The parish is well drained, has two railways running into it from London, with three railway stations, and it is a most eligible place for building these houses. Why should

1321
not the Crown and the County Council come to some reasonable terms by which that land might be acquired? At £200 an acre at 2½ per cent. interest the income of the Crown from that land would be doubled by the transaction, and they would, at the same time, solve a most important social problem. Taking 1,700 acres, and estimating twenty-five houses per acre, that would provide 42,500 houses, and taking the average of each set of occupiers at six per house, a population of 255,000, or over a quarter of a million people, could be accommodated on this Crown land. I do not think that the London County Council have ever approached the Government on this subject. This scheme would solve the problem at once as regards a quarter of a million of people, and it would be better to have that property rated in London for the benefit of London rather than outside. I hope the Government will consider this suggestion as a practical means of solving the question.
MR. HAZELL: I do not want to make any remarks of a party character; but, in common with many other Members, I must express my disappointment that this Bill is such a small one. It is, in fact, only something to hope for, and I trust that it will be considerably enlarged in its passage through the House. I do not think anything has been said so far which can be called exaggeration. The fact remains that, in London alone, about half a million people are living three persons or more in one room; and when we speak of a room I think we are apt to think of rooms very much larger than those used by enormous classes of the population. I saw myself a case in very good model dwellings. There were two persons living in the one room, which was about eleven feet square, and for this space, with a very small scullery, the rent was 5s. 6d. a week. In the neighbourhood where I live working people have to pay as much as 10s. and 11s. per week for two moderate-sized rooms. With regard to the spreading of the repayments over a longer period, I was glad to hear hon. Members opposite say that they saw no reason why the repayments for land should not be spread over 100 years. I cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Stepney, who has said that the buildings erected by the London County
1322
Council were calculated to last for 200 or 300 years. I hope before that time comes that the working men will not be content to live in such barracks as they live in at the present time. We cannot foresee the movement of population for so long a period, and it would be unwise to attempt to spread the payment over such a long period. I should like to say a word as to the action of the Local Government Board. I do not wish to say a word against the President of that Department or the Under Secretary, but I am inclined to think that there is a power behind them which sometimes makes it difficult for the local authorities to exercise their powers. I understand that the repayment for loans may be spread over sixty years, but the Local Government Board has issued a circular limiting the time to fifty years, and I believe that in very rare cases indeed is that time exceeded. I think the Local Government Board might simplify matters by extending repayments as far as the Acts permit. But Parliament should go further, and give local authorities power not only to buy land for this particular class of buildings, but to hold it until the growing population requires it. Why should we not look at the housing question in connection with tramways and light railways? Take, for instance, my own constituency of Leicester. At the present time it is one of the best towns in the country for the housing of the people. There are fewer people overcrowded there than in almost any large town, though Leicester is increasing at the rate of about 10,000 persons a year. At the present time the Corporation is contemplating setting up a system of electrical tramways by an improved method. Why should they not at the same time have power to buy land in the outskirts of the town, at almost agricultural value, and be empowered to offer sites to the people as the population increases? Why should the Corporation make the outlay on a tramway system to enrich the owners of the land outside? One hon. Member, who threw cold water on this Bill, referred to the cost of travelling to and fro. I have known of very many cases where lads coming into London to work have had to spend nearly the whole of their wages in travelling. I hope the question will be thoroughly threshed out, for I admit that it is a very

1323
difficult and complicated one. We are only now upon the fringe of the subject, and sometimes even the very best schemes do not produce the results anticipated. I believe this measure is a very small but an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult problem.
MR. CHAPLIN: Everyone, I am sure, will agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down when he says that this is a most important, and at the same time a most complicated question. We have had, I must say, a most interesting debate, and I cannot recollect any afternoon for a very considerable time on which the time of the House has been better and more profitably spent than it has been to-day. I have listened most carefully to all the criticisms which have been made upon the Bill, the Second Reading of which I have moved to-night. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, if I may say so, made a most able and temperate speech. His chief objection was that the Bill was such a small one. I need hardly remind the hon. Member that the importance of a measure does not always depend upon its extent. When he complained of that and said the Bill was entirely inadequate, I thought the hon. Member gave himself completely away, because the hon. Member, in almost the next sentence, pointed out that there were only two possible methods by which this question could be dealt with. One was a method to which the hon. Member said that, as far as he knew, the Government was altogether opposed and was entirely beyond the scope of the present Bill. That was a new method of valuation, which the hon. Member acknowledged, and which I myself admit is a question of the first importance. The second remedy—the true remedy, as the hon. Member called it—was to take the population beyond the dear belt immediately around London. That is precisely what is proposed in the Bill which the Government have submitted to the House. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment went a step further and recommended, as one solution of the question, the adoption of the principle of fair rents, and also that there should be powers to borrow money at a much cheaper rate of interest with a greatly extended period for the repayment of the loans. As the hon. Member is not now in the House, and as his views with
1324
regard to the establishment of fair-rent courts have found no other supporter up to the present, I do not think I will further trouble the House by saying anything on that point, although it would be easy and simple to say a good deal if I so desired. The hon. Member for Hoxton associated himself entirely with the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. He drew a picture which evidently moved a great many of his audience. He described a landlord who was the owner of slum property in London who altogether neglected his duties. "Make him," he said, ''enforce the clauses which are always contained in agreements of this kind for the purpose of maintaining the premises in a proper condition and proper repair with due regard to the health of the inhabitants. If he fails in doing this, then you have a condition of things which, sooner or later, produces an insanitary area. This will give you the right by law, under those conditions, to re-enter those premises as speedily as possible, and then you can put upon him at once the obligation to build decent and proper dwellings in the place of the houses which are then in existence. If for any reason he is unable to carry out this suggestion, why then give the local authority the right to buy him out of his own property at the value of the property subject to the obligation to rebuild." I think that is not an unfair description of the proposal which the hon. Member for Hoxton suggested and put before the House. I must remind the House, however, that that proposal, as was pointed out by the Member for South Shields, is not within the scope of the present Bill, which deals only with the amendment of the third part of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. As far as I am myself concerned, although I should like to give this rather sweeping proposal a good deal fuller consideration, at all events, with the spirit of that proposal I have a very great deal of sympathy, and I think it is deserving of the careful consideration of Parliament. I have been asked by several speakers why are these larger questions not included within the scope of this measure. I told the House before, when I introduced the Bill, what was at least one of the main reasons of the limits within which it was confined. I was afraid, if I raised the whole question, and raised all the in-

1325
numerable points which might be afterwards raised in consideration of this question in a session such as this promised to be at that time, with, in all probability, very little time for large measures of legislation of this nature, that what it would end in would be that we should pass nothing at all. No time would have been found for a prolonged discussion upon a measure of so large a character, and I thought it was much wiser to begin with the moderate proposal we have now submitted to the House, although I have never contended for a moment that what I ask the House to pass this afternoon is to be the final measure with regard to this question. Whatever we may do now, this question will have to be dealt with probably more than once again before it is finally settled. In itself the measure which I propose to pass during the present session would be a very great and a very considerable gain, and a great step in the right direction, as has been acknowledged by many speakers on the opposite side of the House in the course of this debate. With regard to every word that has been said by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House in reference to the evils of overcrowding and the high death-rate which follows as a consequence, and also in regard to the exorbitant rents which are sometimes exacted, I most entirely agree. But what is the rent? The hon. Member for Stepney gave us some startling instances of a recent great rise in rent. But why is this possible? Because, as we have been told, there is no room at present in which to live. The true remedy, then, is to give more room in which to live, and this we propose to do in our Bill by going beyond that dear belt to which the hon. Member for South Shields referred, by giving the local authorities the power to acquire land at a much cheaper price than it is possible at present to buy it within this belt. While the hon. Member for Hoxton was speaking I noticed the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich put a question in which he asked, "Why is it that these covenants into which the landlords have entered are not fulfilled?" The hon. Member for Hoxton did not answer him, and I am not at all surprised at it, because one of the peculiarities in nearly all the speeches which have been made on the opposite side of the House to-night has been that they are a sweeping indictment against the local authorities. I am not at all surprised at
1326
the hon. Member for Stepney being a little uncomfortable on this point, for he evidently showed that he was conscious of what might be said on the subject. Before anyone had said anything against him, the hon. Member for Stepney began to explain why it was that local authorities had found themselves unable to perform all their duties. I am sure I have every wish in the world not to delay the House for a moment longer than I can help, but, when the Government are so severely attacked in regard to the inadequacy of their Bill, I wonder how many Members in the House, and how many of those who have been attacking us, are really aware of the extent and the variety of the existing powers which the local authorities already possess. In my own self-defence I must ask leave of the House to explain as shortly and as succinctly as I can what the existing powers are. As a matter of fact local authorities are given most extensive powers at this moment under five different Acts of Parliament for the purpose of dealing with this question. They are the Public Health Act of 1875, the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, the Common Lodging Houses Act (London), the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, and the Public Health Act of 1881. It is not necessary for me tonight to enter into the details of those different Acts, but I affirm, without the possibility of contradiction, that powers of the widest and amplest description under these Acts are given to the local authorities already, and if they were used to their fullest ex tent the position of the working classes as regards their housing might be very different indeed to what it is to-day. If they are not enforced, and if these powers have not been enforced in the past as they might have been, it is due to faulty administration rather than to defects in the existing law. Most of the criticisms which have been made to-night relate to urban districts, and some of them to rural districts. It will be more convenient for me to deal with them separately, and I will take the case of the urban districts first, because, in my opinion, they are by far the most important, for it is in the case of the urban districts that there is the greatest necessity and the greatest opening for reform. One of the commonest complaints which has been made against the Bill is in regard to its inadequacy. It is said that the Bill contains no provision for

1327
dealing with the owners of unhealthy houses, and that it is unsatisfactory because it does not amend the law relating to compensation for such houses. That complaint occurs in both of the Amendments which have been placed upon the Paper. I thought at the time that this was done probably in. ignorance of the fact that this point is specifically, and—as I should have thought had it not been for the speeches made by the hon. Members for South Shields and Hoxton— sufficiently dealt with in the Act of 1890. The provisions of that Act apply not only to insanitary areas, but to insanitary houses as well, and with regard to insanitary houses the provisions are quite as full. In the first place it is the duty of the medical officer for health of the district to report to the local authorities any house which seems to him to be so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation; that in itself would embracea vast number of the houses which are complained of at the present time; but in case the medical officer is neglectful or unmindful of his duties, then four householders can call upon him, and require him to visit the house; and it is also the duty of the Local authority to see that their district is carefully, properly, and regularly surveyed. If the local authority, in consequence of those powers and in the performance of their duty, find an insanitary house or houses in their district, they may proceed in either of two ways. They may, if they please, take action under the Public Health Act, under which the owner may be required by notice—and I beg the House to observe this when we are told that nothing is done to the owners—the owner may be required by notice to put the house in complete order at his own cost and expense; he can be compelled to cany out any such works as may be notified by the local authority, and take such means as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the mischief; if it turns out to be the fault of the owner, or he fails to meet the requirements of the local authority, he can be heavily fined in each case. He can be taken before the magistrate, when his house can be closed by order, and thus occupation can be prohibited, and he is, in London, liable to still heavier fines and an additional fine for each day he remains in fault. Now I commend those powers to the hon. Member for Stepney, who has been so
1328
down on my Bill to-night, because he has not only been a member of a vestry for ten years, but a member of the London County Council as well. There has been a great dereliction of duty on the part of the County Council, because by a resolution the County Council can take over all the powers of a vestry, and it then becomes their duty to deal with such matters. But if that is not sufficient, the local authority can proceed under the powers of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and it is under that Act that the powers of the local authority are most commonly used. The penalties under that Act are still more serious for the owner; not only is he liable to be fined, but his house can be closed and pulled down at his own expense. He can be ordered to demolish the house, but this is not all; because he can be required to make an allowance to his dispossessed tenant equivalent to the cost of the removal from the house which is being pulled down. I think I have shown that the powers already conferred upon the local authority are most enormous, and if the local authority does not exercise those powers it is the fault of the administration of the local authority and not the fault of Parliament which has given them such ample powers. The objectionable part having been dealt with in this summary way, the question of compensation is to be dealt with as follows. In the first place it is to be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by the central authority, whose instructions are definitely laid down by the Act. He is to take evidence on the subject, and if he finds that the rental value of the house has been enhanced by reason of the house having been illegally used or having been overcrowded, then the compensation so far as it depends upon the rental at all is to be based on such a rental only as would have been paid if the house had not been illegally used and overcrowded; and if the conditions are such as to be injurious to health, or the sanitary arrangements are defective, or the house is not in good repair, then the compensation is to be based upon the value of the premises supposing all those repairs and defects had been made good, and the cost of making them good is deducted from the compensation before it is paid to the landlord. Further, if the premises are unfit and incapable of being made fit for human habitation, then the building is to be demolished at the cost

1329
of the owner. No other house that is dangerous or insanitary is to be erected on the site or any part of it, and, if the local authority elect to acquire the site, the compensation in that case is to be based on the value of the free land and the materials of the demolished house,' which as a general rule I should say amounts to practically nothing. Those are the provisions with regard to compensation, and [should have thought, but for the speeches of the hon. Member opposite who moved the Amendment, that unless hon. Gentlemen held that a house was insanitary because the drains had gone wrong, or that the ventilation was defective, or because it was overcrowded, and therefore property of that kind ought to be confiscated, either wholly or partially, it was not very easy to see how Parliament was to go much further in that direction than it has gone already; and when we are blamed because we do not deal with the question of owners and compensation, I think I have shown, at all events with regard to these two points, that the powers already conferred on the local authority are very great indeed; and at the present moment are far wider, I suspect, than hon. Members had any idea. Let me add to this that if the local authorities are really in earnest and mindful of their own business in this matter, there is no difficulty whatever, as has been suggested, in getting at the owner of the property, because he is defined in the Public Health Act in this way—
"The person for the time being receiving the rack rent of the premises in connection with which the work has been assessed, whether on his own account or,"
and let the House mark this—
"as agent or trustee for any other person or who would receive the same if such premises were let at a rack rental."
Now who is the person who receives the rent? The collector is the person for the time being who receives the rent, and he can always be found because he is there every Saturday [A VOICE: Monday!] An hon. Gentleman says Monday, but I am only repeating what a collector told me himself. He said—
"I am bound to be there on a Saturday, because if I am not there on the day my tenants get their wages I never get my money at all."
So that there is no difficulty in finding the owner. In addition to this the local
1330
authority have the power of entering into these premises at any time they please, and also the power to make most stringent byelaws, which it is their duty to see enforced. I have now dealt with the questions of insanitary areas, finding the owners, and the question of compensation. I need not tell the House that there are other powers no less extensive. With regard to insanitary areas and obstructive buildings—the meaning of which is buildings that interfere with the ventilation or are otherwise calculated to prejudice the health of a particular locality—on both of these points also the local authority possesses the widest possible powers. That being so, and these being the powers already possessed for the purpose of insuring that the working classes shall be housed in dwellings which are kept in a proper condition, a question arises which I have been asked over and over again—"How is it that with all these varied and extensive powers more has not been done at the present time in the direction we all desire. You have an enormous plan for better accommodation, you have an immense population, and you have local authorities without number with powers and provisions they are entirely willing to provide. What is the real difficulty that stands in your way?" It is an extremely natural question, and I have tried my best to examine it with a view of finding what might be the real and true answer, and I must say that I think many people are a little too apt to forget one thing with regard to this question, and that is, the immense magnitude of the subject and what has been already done in regard to it. I am informed that in London alone by public and private enterprise within the last few years—and I am pointing this out to-night in answer to the idea which I think prevails rather widely, that little or nothing has been done at present—dwellings have been provided for nearly 160,000 people. Of course that is a very small number compared with the number who need re-housing, but it shows how immense is the problem with which we have to deal. It is a larger number than the whole population of Brighton, or of any of our towns except 12 or 14, and if it is larger than the population of our large towns the problem is immense indeed. We have only dealt with the fringe of this question. A competent judge told me the other day that before the housing of the working classes in London alone had been provided

1331
for in the manner that it ought to be provided for, we must be prepared for a further outlay of between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 at least. Now, to determine the difficulties which stand in the way. The first step, of course, which sets any reform in motion is the receipt of information by the local authority as to the condition of things in their district, which calls for interference on their part. And whether that information is always supplied as promptly and particularly as it ought to be, depends on two things. First, the efficiency of the local authority over that inspection which they are bound by the statute to make; and, second, on the proper discharge of his duty by the medical officer for health. And there is a matter of the gravest importance which I desire to impress on the attention of the House in regard to this. It is sometimes alleged that the medical officer is not supported by the local authority in the discharge of his duties as he ought to be, and the action of the medical officer in bringing to the knowledge of the local authorities the condition in which the poor live does not fill the local authority with gratitude, and if the medical officer persists in his action he is sometimes liable to suffer in consequence. I am not able to say how far these allegations are true, I have no information at my disposal, but the remedy which is proposed is to make the medical officer independent of the local authority altogether; and that the assent of the central authority shall be required for his removal. But if these allegations are true, and I cannot help thinking myself that probably there is something in them, I can tell the House that in this respect the powers of the Local Government Board are very considerable indeed, and that the independence of ninety-nine medical officers out of every 100 I am sure can be assured without any new provision whatever, and when it is proved to me that the intention of Parliament in passing these Acts is to be retarded or defeated by the means that I have referred to, I shall not hesitate to use all the powers at my disposal, and to use them to the fullest possible extent. The really difficult feature, I am convinced, is the question of cost, because it is said that many of the local authorities are at their wits' end to know how they are to provide the accommodation without making some charge upon the rates. I have heard some
1332
strong views upon that subject in the course of debates upon various Bills before the House to which I should be tempted to refer, except for the fact that I should be out of order in doing so. But, so far as I am informed upon the subject, this difficulty can only be got over by one of three means. You must erect your buildings in a more economical manner, borrow on better terms, or build where land is cheap. I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters, and therefore pass no criticisms, but I have lately seen buildings erected by the County Council, rows of single cottages two storeys high, which had cost £200 apiece, and in point of economy and accommodation I should say they left little or nothing to be desired. Those buildings reflect great credit on the architect who devised and carried them out. At the same time, the cost of some public buildings which come before the Local Government Board day after day is something absolutely alarming. Only the other day I was asked to sanction a scheme, I think it was for a hospital or infirmary, the cost of which was little short of £500 a bed. With regard to borrowing at better interest, I have been pressed over and over again to extend the period for repayment of loans from sixty to 100 years. I hope the House will forgive me for going into those details, but when we are accused of putting the burden not on our own shoulders but on the shoulders of the generations who come after us, it seems to me to be a very important matter. What docs such a demand mean? It means the transference of the burden of housing the poor of to-day to the shoulders of the coming generations of ratepayers. I am always ready to listen to arguments that are addressed to me, and I desire to examine the arguments for and against that proposal as impartially as I can. The argument in favour is a simple one: that the work would be done more rapidly than at present, and that many schemes which are now impossible without imposing a charge on the rates could be carried out at once, and that it would improve the general position with far greater facility than possible at present. But there is a great deal to be said against it. The first question is, will the buildings last that time—will they be any good at the end of one hundred years? I am not quite sure that they

1333
would. It is a long time to look forward to. But, if we are all agreed that they would there is a much more important question. Will they meet the requirements of public opinion fifty or one hundred years hence? It is possible, at all events, to entertain doubts upon the subject. What is the accommodation which is being provided by the County Council at the present time? Huge blocks of buildings in which great masses of people aggregate. I have a very vivid recollection of our experience during the present Parliament in connection with the poor law schools of the metropolis. It is only between thirty and fifty years ago that an enormous change was made in regard to the schools for the Poor Law children of London. Loans to the extent of £1,200,000 were sanctioned for the purpose, and that money was spent on buildings not dissimilar from the huge blocks now being provided for the adult population. Those schools were regarded as an enormous improvement upon anything that had been done before, and were welcomed as a change deserving the approval of all humane and kind-hearted people. They are now described in terms of contumely as barrack schools, but at the time they were erected they were regarded as a great improvement on what has been done before, They were then considered perfection; thirty years have not elapsed, £1,200,000 has been spent, and to-day the buildings are in as good condition as on the day they were built; but opinion has entirely changed, and we are now called upon to alter and change them and put other buildings in their place. What guarantee is there that there will not be a similar change of opinion fifty or a hundred years hence as to the way in which the working classes are to be housed now? And unless there is some guarantee, is it fair, is it wise, or prudent, or just, to cast upon future generations of ratepayers the burden of the great capital outlay which we may think it our duty to make to-day? With the constant increase of population which is always going on from day to day the time will come when future generations must provide new dwellings of their own. They will have their own responsibilities and burdens to meet, and if your buildings are as good as you claim I have no doubt they will be burdened in addition with the maintenance and repair of those build-
1334
ings as well. It has been suggested tonight by several different speakers that, whatever course we may think it our duty to take with regard to lengthening or shortening the period of repayment, at all events we should make this concession, that we shall be willing to treat the land which is bought for this purpose as an asset, and that no sinking fund shall be required in that case. That is a question which stands on a somewhat different footing, and without making any promise I will say that I shall be perfectly ready to take the proposal into serious consideration. I am not altogether satisfied upon this point, and I hope before we consider this matter in Committee I shall have fuller information in reference to it. Going through some of the worst slums some time ago I found that for the very worst kind of accommodation for a family you had to pay five shillings a week. Five shillings a week is £13 a year, and when I find that excellent cottages can be built for £200, and when I am told the land is a very unimportant part of the outlay, I cannot understand how it is you are unable to provide a cottage without making a loss at a rental of £13 a year— five shillings a week—which only costs £200 to build.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Not in London.
MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, in London. I saw some myself in Poplar or Stepney.
MR. STEADMAN: Not in Stepney.
MR. CHAPLIN: I tremble to think of how the municipal debt will grow. It is large enough now, and it is increasing by leaps and bounds. In the twenty-three years from 1874–75 until 1897–98 the outstanding loans of local authorities increased from £92,820,000 to £262,017,000, an increase of £169,197,000, or upwards of 182 per cent. During the same period the National Debt was reduced from £768,945,000 to £634,435,000, or a reduction of £134,510,000. I cannot help thinking that these figures raise a most serious question, and one which the House ought to take most carefully into consideration. The other alternative is what the Government have proposed—the buying land outside the area by local authority. It seems to me that there would be most

1335
enormous advantages in that. It would relieve the congestion of the towns, and the people would live in a better atmosphere and under more healthy conditions, and they would have better accommodation than it is possible to provide within the limits of the towns. To make it successful it is essential that there should be cheap and easy communication, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields. He, however, complained that there was nothing in the Bill to enable the county council to obtain adequate communication. There is no necessity, so far as I know, for putting anything of the kind into this Bill. As regards railway accommodation, the Board of Trade have the most ample powers already to obtain it, and the President of the Board assures me he is ready to use them whenever necessary.
MR. ROBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to ask whether the Board of Trade have the power to procure cheap trains under the Cheap Trains Act between a crowded district and a district where there is no population whatever?
MR. CHAPLIN: No. I cannot conceive that any such power should exist, as to provide cheap trains from a crowded district to a district where there is no population at all. What would be the use of them?
MR. ROBSON: This Bill proposes to take people from crowded districts and to place them where no population now exists. I have pointed out that the poor population will not go there unless under the Cheap Trains Act you can guarantee them cheap communication with the places in which they will have to work.
MR. CHAPLIN: I can quite understand the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Board of Trade have power to provide cheap trains between two populations, and they will do so the moment the necessity arises. I do not see what can be the necessity for the adoption of communication before the population is there. Certainly I am most strongly in favour of it myself, and my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade assures me that he will exert his powers, and there is every reason to believe that the railway companies are perfectly willing to do it. The Board of
1336
Trade have invariably found that the railway companies have been willing to accept any decisions they arrive at as regards train service; and they have never yet had the necessity of making a formal order under the Act. On that point therefore I have not the slightest doubt that the President of the Board of Trade, whenever the occasion arises, will see that proper communication is provided, and if he fails in that task it will be for the hon. and learned Member to attack him. Well, then, as regards the other means of communication—by tramways—that is a matter which is already in the hands of the local authorities; and although local authorities are at present unable to make tramways beyond their own areas, yet the hon. Gentleman will derive encouragement from the fact that in connection with the Huddersfield Corporation Bill the House took the most decided action, and referred that Bill by unanimous consent back to the Committee because the powers of extending their tramways beyond their own area had been refused. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the question of communication between crowded centres and now localities outside the area will not be dealt with in due season. I am afraid that I have detained the House at very great length, but I must say a few words in regard to the rural districts. In the first place I wish to correct a misapprehension which rather commonly prevails. It is not the case that complaints of bad houses in rural districts are by any means universal. There is this great distinction in town and country in that respect. In towns the great landowners who hold property in the slums are quite the exception. In the country, on the other hand, great landowners are everywhere common, and where that is so, as a rule, the supply of cottages is good. That is universally admitted, and will be found in the Report of the Commission. If you come to consider what is the extent of ownership under the heading of great estates, hon. Members will be surprised, as I was myself, to find how extremely large it is. It amounts to one half of the whole land owned in the United Kingdom. Of course there are exceptions to the rule of good landlords of large estates. There are black sheep in every class. Moreover, in these days, when agricultural incomes have often gone down to

1337
nothing, it is not always possible for the landlords to repair cottages and to build now ones as extensively as they could wish. But that consideration applies also to the local authorities. It would be absolute madness for local authorities to lay out largo sums of money in agricultural districts in the provision of cottages, which, for aught they know, may cease at any time to be needed. I would direct the attention of the House to a single paragraph in the report of Mr. William Little, a man of whom I would say that to a great deal of the late Sir James Caird's ability he added more practical experience. I knew both well for many years, and always thought that Mr. William Little was so conversant with every phase of rural life that his opinion was always deserving of the most careful consideration. What he said on this point was
"It seems to me very doubtful whether local authorities are always capable of giving dispassionate consideration to the question whether it is desirable or possible to retain the present number of inhabitants in the rural districts, if corn prices remain at the level now reached, it is certain that large tracts of land will go out of cultivation, and if good houses had been sufficiently supplied in all rural districts twenty years ago, many of them would now be unoccupied."
Now, that tallies exactly with my own personal experience. I have known instances of now cottages on farms where new buildings have been quite recently erected, for which tenants cannot be found, even at no rent at all. That is one reason why I think it desirable to retain the supervision of an authority which is not amenable to pressure by the voters, and by that I mean authorities like the county councils. Again, it must be remembered—and here I am sorry to differ in opinion from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk—that, as a rule, the provision of cottages certainly does not pay. He told us this evening that he had built excellent cottages of five rooms for £125. That is a very much more fortunate experience than I have had. I have built many labourers cottages, and if the hon. Gentleman had not said it I should have thought it hardly possible. But an additional reason why we should be most careful in stopping private enterprise is the fact that the cottages rarely pay. Enormous sums have been spent by landlords in the rural districts without the slightest hope of a pecuniary
1338
return. They have done it simply because they thought it their duty and in the interests of the people who live on their estates; and we must be most careful to do nothing whatever to check that. There is a paragraph in the Report which refers to the condition of the houses in the rural districts in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It points out that the cottages are far the best in England, the next best in Scotland, and the worst in Ireland. But in Ireland you have all these Acts and powers in the hands of the local authorities, and you have landlords who have done nothing, and naturally and reasonably so, because the control of their estates has been taken from them. What we have done in this Bill is to remove the hampering restrictions which formerly encumbered the district councils in the endeavours to discharge their duties under the Act. I had a communication sent to me the other day from a gentleman whom I am happy to say must be considered an authority on this question, because he is one of the few people who under the existing law has provided cottages for his labourers. When we are twitted with the insufficiency of the proposals in this Bill in regard to the rural districts, I should like to read a few words from Mr. Perrott's letter in the East Anglian Daily Times. He said that the Bill now before the House does "a great deal." It is quite true that he wishes one or two additions to the Act. He wishes powers under the Act of 1894 for the acquisition of land; including the hiring of land. The hire of land for cultivation is one thing, but the hiring of land for building purposes introduces totally different considerations. I am altogether opposed to the hiring of land for building purposes. Whether it maybe possible to make some alteration in the Act with regard to the acquisition of land by purchase is another matter which I am prepared to consider. All we seek to do seems to me perfectly reasonable, that the position of the county council as a thoroughly independent body should be retained on this question. I have dealt very fully with all the matters raised during the debate, and with the main features of the Bill. I am very pleased and very sensible of the fact that the unanimous opinion on both sides of the House is that this is a matter which ought not to be treated with party

1339
feeling. There is no monopoly of a desire to improve the condition of the houses of the working classes on either side of the House. I believe it is an object that we all have at heart, and I cannot conceive it to be otherwise on the part of any man of humane and kindly feeling, or of those who have seen for themselves and who know the conditions under which so many of our poor live at the present time. I hope this Bill will be allowed to go forward, and that we shall be successful in passing it into law this session. I do not pretend for a moment that there is anything like finality about it in dealing with this question. Again and again, and more than once again before it is settled, in all human probability this subject will be further dealt with by Parliament. But this is a step, a long step, and a new departure in the right direction. It is pressed upon us from all quarters outside the House as a thing desirable in itself, and although I shall be willing and ready and prepared to consider with all the attention they deserve any proposals for amendment which may be made by hon. Members on either side of the House, that are within the scope of the Bill, yet I am myself convinced that even in its present shape it will do much to improve the condition of our working classes. And if that be so no one will rejoice more than myself.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has in his speech gone over a large extent of ground connected with this great question, and that in the concluding portion of his remarks he has held out a hope that he may be persuaded into a position of sweet reasonableness when the Committee stage is reached, and that upon the question of loans for the purchase of land he is open to conviction. The right hon. Gentleman has also shown a certain amount of willingness to meet suggestions for helping to transfer colonies outside the boundaries of great boroughs; but when he comes to consider this matter he will find that the concessions he offered are not sufficient to meet the demands formulated on this side of the House. It will be necessary, before any great number of people can be transferred from the great towns, that they should have a guarantee of a reasonable means of access to their places of work. That cannot be done without an enlargement
1340
of the powers of the Board of Trade. People depending on their daily wage cannot leave the town unless and until they have a certainty that trains will start for town the next day. To wait for the population to grow would mean that the first settlers in the outside area would have to wait for weeks for a train service, and that in itself would be a barrier to the scheme of a colony, and showed the necessity for greater transit facilities, such as my hon. friend suggested. The rural districts have not been Sufficiently discussed, and I hope when the debate is continued there will be expressions of opinion and detailed statements from rural district representatives. I agree that in the majority of cases where estates are in the hands of large landowners there is a commendable amount of consideration given to the housing of the hands employed on them. In some instances you cannot have better. But in many districts there are what are called open villages, and a large amount of the rural population are there crowded together under conditions equally bad with those existing in the slums of the large towns. You will find the Assistant Commissioners giving most appalling examples of overcrowding in these rural districts and the need for better accommodation. I have myself been engaged in an inquiry with reference to the condition in various parts of England of 4,179 individual cottages. In a second inquiry 298 villages were taken as samples of the condition of the houses. It was found that 22½ per cent. of the cottages, or nearly a fourth, were unsatisfactory or very bad, practically unfit for human habitation; 47 per cent. of the villages showed insufficient accommodation for the people of the locality. Not only was the general condition insanitary and bad, but there was overcrowding. The water supply in 15 per cent. of the cottages was very bad; in 27 per cent. the supply was bad. I have seen the only accessible water supply for a row of cottages coming from a neighbouring ditch in which an arable field, manured with town refuse, was forced to drain. We found 75 per cent. of the rural cottages had not more than two bedrooms, and the instances were numerous where there existed the overcrowding of growing families—six and seven persons in one room. Sixty-six per cent. of the bedrooms were without fireplaces—

1341
one of the best means of ventilation. That gives a statistical summary of the condition of the people, a record which must make us pause and try to do something for the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman used words which I think were a little too strong when he said that it would be absolute madness for rural authorities to lay out money in building cottages for the people.
MR. CHAPLIN: Where they are not likely to be needed.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: There are many places in the rural districts where the population is going down, but there are many other places where population might be attracted if decent homes were provided for the people, and with a plot of land of half an acre or an acre for cultivation attached to the cottages I believe they would be found to pay in almost any district of England. At all events, the local authorities would take care, with their ordinary prudence, that they would not overbuild the requirements of the locality. They would have the security of the land and the houses for the money spent. I am sure that any attempt on the part of the local authorities to provide housing accommodation of a decent kind in the rural districts would not be an improper or an unwise speculation, but would redound to the prosperity of the rural districts, and it would supply farms with a better chance of getting good labour than they had at present, and so contribute to the agricultural prosperity of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says he has done a good deal for the rural districts in this Bill. I admit that he has simplified the procedure for the acquisition of land—that is to say, he has made it a less lengthy, tedious and costly process than it was in the Bill of 1890. But what we desire above all, is that the local authority should act in a much more speedy fashion than is contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. In this Bill are retained, despite the cry of the people in rural England for houses, nearly all those chances of vexatious interference that had rendered the Act of 1890 practically a dead letter up to the present time. And yet, although the Act had been a dead letter in consequence of the difficulties raised with reference to the county councils, the right hon. Gen-
1342
tleman, while he takes away from the county councils the duty of holding an inquiry, still gives to them an opportunity, under various heads, of considering and delaying every application made by district councils. The necessity for accommodation for housing, the probability of such accommodation being provided without adopting the Act, the liability to an increase of rates; and whether it is prudent to proceed— all these things are opportunities for delay; they would necessitate it to a very large extent. It is that delay that has choked off local council after local council when trying to put the Act into operation. We want a simpler process between the local authority on the one hand, that is to raise the money and build the cottages, and the Local Government Board on the other hand, which is to sanction the loan. If we had that and also one central authority, we would expedite the method of raising this money and building these cottages, and we should bring the Act more within the grasp of the local authorities. My point is also important in another direction, because the Local Government Board would, I believe, gradually obtain more power to do its work rapidly, and in that way the delays to which I have referred would be avoided. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having made what I think almost amounts to a promise to consider the methods of acquiring land by compulsion for the purpose of erecting cottages in rural districts, with a view to adopting the provisions of the Act of 1894. The Act of 1894 gives a more simple and less expensive process than is contemplated in this Bill or in the Act of 1890, and if he would adopt the process in the Act of 1894, with reference to the acquisition of land, he would take a good step forward in the right direction. I should be glad if he would take a further step forward. I cannot understand why local authorities should not be allowed to lease land for the purpose of building, to take a lease from a local landowner. That would cheapen the acquisition of land by the local authorities. I do not wish to dwell at length on these points with reference to the rural districts, and I go back for a moment to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the towns. He said that there were certain

1343
questions which had to be considered. First of all there was the question of the administration of the present Act. The House was well satisfied to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the powers which already exist in various Acts of Parliament, and I think that was a very instructive portion of his speech, but if you put the existence of those powers on one side and the terrible picture we have had of London and other large towns on the other, the House must be convinced that something is wrong somewhere. The right hon. Gentleman wants to put it down to administration, but it is not the fault of administration altogether. It is said that if these things exist medical officers of health have not successfully carried out their duties. How can medical officers of health be expected to carry out their duties when they have no security of tenure and are not in an independent position to enable them to fight the local authorities which employ them. If you have a local authority interested in small houses and a medical officer of health elected annually how can he be expected to condemn the property of the men who employ him? When I was at the Local Government Board in conjunction with my right hon. friend I had case after case where local authorities dropped too zealous medical officers, and as long as that condition of things exists you cannot expect these men to discharge their duties properly. The right hon. Gentleman says that he would exercise all the powers of the Local Government Board for the protection of these medical officers, but his powers are small. He cannot force a local authority to elect a man against its will; but if medical officers had a tenure of office like a parish surgeon they would do their duty without fear or favour, and would urge the local authorities to administer the Acts more efficiently than they are administered at the present time. With reference to inspection the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not done well enough; that many sanitary inspectors in rural districts are not skilled persons. I hope very soon we shall have some amendment of the law with regard to inspection, and that a person must possess a certificate of efficiency before his appointment as inspector, and that we shall not have broken-down blacksmiths and other persons appointed as inspectors. We want skilled men for
1344
this delicate and important work. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is not enough inspection in the administration of these Acts. In one part of London there is only one inspector to 25,000 people, in London as a whole one inspector to 18,500 people. No man under such circumstances can do his duty and know all the houses in his district. We want a larger force for this work than is provided at present. I think also it would be a very good thing if London and other towns would follow the lead of Manchester, and more recently of Birmingham, and appoint women as health missioners to visit the poorer parts and look after sanitary matters. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was this want of proper local administration, when all these powers which he read out exist, that causes the evils of which we complain. We have had to-night in this debate a lurid chapter of horrors in connection with the housing of the poor in London. Nine hundred thousand people in London are living under conditions not sanitary, not healthy, not good in any sense. That is an appalling indictment of the civilisation of the century, and certainly every thinking man should endeavour to find some means by which at all events it may be modified. The right hon. Gentleman says that plenty of powers exist. If so, why are they not used? They cannot be used because nearly all the powers he quoted to-night are powers to unhouse the people, but not to rehouse them. The London County Council, with all its fervour for this good work, has unhoused 24,000 people, and has only been able to rehouse 10,000. There have been schemes for rehousing, but they have not been carried out. [An HON. MEMBER: They are in course of construction.] Yes, but where are the people in the meantime? If you demolish an unsanitary area you cause the overcrowding in other districts to be still greater, and the last condition of the people is worse than the first. Take the Boundary Street scheme of the London County Council, which furnishes a complete answer to all these statements about existing powers. Let us see what it means. For that scheme the London County Council purchased fifteen acres of land at a cost of a quarter of a million. That area was described as a sink of iniquity and a hotbed of crime. The London County Council lost no less than £200,000 by that scheme. It is true

1345
that we have power to pull down these dwellings, to purchase land, and to erect buildings, but how can a body go on doing that when it means a loss of £200,000 over fifteen acres of land? How does that loss come in? It is because the existing Acts are deficient for the purpose of enabling local authorities to take land. That is where the difficulty is. All this compensation for land is what runs up the money. In this case the cost of the land was a quarter of a million. The London County Council said: Here are fifteen acres of houses creating vice and disease; we must get rid of them, we will pull down the old houses and erect new ones. But when the Council comes to acquire the land an arbitrator is called in under the Land Clauses Act. He values the land, not as for the purpose of erecting houses for the working classes, but as if it were to be used for a brewery or a factory, and that is the value which the London County Council had to pay, and they had to pay the highest price and not the lowest. Until you alter that, and have some such measure as was suggested by the mover of the Amendment, you can never hope that great municipalities will be able to meet the demands made upon them in carrying out this great and beneficent work. It is too costly, and you want a cheaper system. [believe that if the scheme which was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Hoxton were carried out we should be on the right line. At present buildings can be condemned by the local authority as unfit for human habitation, and if the moment that condemnation was uttered the lease or sublease of the land were thereby cancelled and the owner of the land were called on to put up proper dwellings for the working classes, then you would get at once from the leaseholder to the principal holder. The Prince of Wales referred the other day to the difficulties he had with some property on account of being unable to get the lease into his own hands. A simple modification of the law would alleviate that difficulty, and he would be able to take over as the original owner the whole area, and to put upon it proper dwellings for the working classes. I do not think there would often be any necessity for the original owner to step in, because the man who had the lease would take care the local authority would not be given an opportunity of determining it,
1346
thereby destroying his profit. A revision of the law in that direction would be the best possible amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to go that far, I hope, at all events, he will adopt the clauses of the Act of 1894, under which the compensation would be less and the process of purchase much easier. I believe if he did that he would give the local authorities fresh heart to carry on this work, and they want it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that much more might be done by the local authorities, but they are afraid to move because of the terrible expense owing to the amount of money that has to be paid for the land, but however costly these things are, the local authorities ought to take steps to carry them out. I want to put an argument before the House which greatly concerns the health and well-being of the people of London. I find that the density of population for the whole of London, as given in the last report issued by the Registrar General, is 60.9 per acre, and that over the whole of that area the death rate in 1899 was 19.3. Remark how the death rate goes up when we come to the crowded districts. In St. Luke's the density of the population is nearly three times that of the average in London, being 172.2 per acre, and the death rate went up from 19.3, the average, to 28.4, so that, therefore, for every 1,000 people living in that area, nine lives more per year are lost than in less crowded districts. In St. George's, Southwark, the density is 213 to the acre, and the death rate has gone up from 19 to 27. There is another point I wish to refer to. Nowadays, when we talk about open air treatment for certain diseases, we are continually pressing the beneficial effects of open air to persons suffering from various constitutional diseases, such as consumption. In Lon-don, as a whole, the death rate from that form of disease is 1.8, but in St. Luke's it is 3.5 and in St. George's, Southwark, 3.5 also. Here are people, in the midst of riches and luxury, dying for the want of fresh air which sanitary defects deprive them of. It is the same with regard to zymotic diseases, and children die three or four times as fast in these crowded districts as in other districts. What does that mean? It means that the death rate in those districts is eight or nine per thousand more than in the rest of London. Dr. Farr, who is

1347
the greatest authority on vital statistics that this country has ever produced, made a calculation that the community loses £159 for every man, woman, and child that dies of preventable disease. He estimated that that was the life value of the individual. We have 900,000 people in London living under bad sanitary conditions. I will not take the loss at nine per thousand, but only at four, and I will not take the amount at £159 but at £150, and I find that according to Dr. Farr our loss amounts in London alone to £540,000 a year, and remember that to that loss must be added the amount of crime which is encouraged by this means and the amount of pauperism which springs out of it, so that on all sides the community has to pay for its want of care of the poor people. No figures could be more eloquent than these. We have to-day evidence in abundance of the evil of which we complain, and of the effect of these conditions both morally and physically on our population, and yet we have a Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman which is not adequate for the purpose of dealing with this great evil. I am glad that local authorities are to be given an opportunity to obtain land outside their own area. That is a wise and proper provision and we are glad to accept it, but we want other things to make it as useful and valuable as it should be. The right hon. Gentleman says that this urgent reform should be dealt with by two or three Bills instead of by one. We on this side of the House feel that a question of this kind ought to be dealt with at once, and dealt with as adequately and thoroughly as we can. When the Bill was introduced the right hon. Gentleman said that in a session like the present he did not feel that there would be time to grapple with such a great question. The complexion of the session has changed, and I think there is time enough now to consider this Bill as well as the various amendments suggested to it. I hope that in the Committee stage he will give us an opportunity of adding to the Bill with the assistance of many hon. Members opposite who feel with us that this is not a party question but a great social problem which Members of all parties ought to try to solve. I hope we may be able to make the acquisition of land easier, to facilitate the establishment of colonies outside towns, and to take land both in town and country
1348
without having to pay an excessive amount as compensation. Local authorities will then be able to carry out the urgent requirements of the people at less cost to the ratepayers and to safeguard the general health of the community.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: As Member for one of the divisions of London referred to in this debate, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for bringing in this Bill, and in doing so I have a protest to make against the action of the London County Council, especially as regards the way in which they have dealt with the rehousing of the poor. Everything that has been said by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields with regard to overcrowding is, I regret to say, absolutely true, but my hon. and learned friend is quite wrong in suggesting that the real remedy is to go outside the metropolis. He comes from the north of England, but I have been born in London, have lived in London all my life, and have watched the steady growth of bricks and mortar. When I hear about going outside London, and when I remember how very many of my constituents are employed, I know it is perfectly absurd to talk to them about going out ten or twelve miles into the country. Men engaged in the Post Office have to be at work at three o'clock in the morning and railway men at five o'clock or six o'clock, and very often men engaged at Pickford's or Carter Paterson's do not leave their work until nine o'clock or ten o'clock at night, and how can these men live ten miles in the country? In spite of all that has been said against them, those great blocks are providing to a great extent more comfortable homes than the slums they have replaced. Observe, for instance, the good accommodation which has been provided by the Guinness trustees in my own constituency. We have heard to-night a great deal about the Boundary Street scheme. I went down there this morning to see once more with my own eyes what the London County Council have done. The London County Council have not done what the Guinness trustees have done. They have sought for popularity by building very pretty but not sufficiently large buildings, and they have failed to provide for the persons they have displaced. I go further

1349
and I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite who are members of the London County Council to deny that of all the unfortunate people who were removed under the Boundary Street scheme—and I am prepared to affirm on the best authority what I state—less than twelve families have been rehoused in the new buildings. That is what I dread in my own constituency—6,000 of the poorest people are to be displaced, and God only knows where they can go. The London County Council will presently build palatial residences which I suppose will be given to favoured members of the working classes as in St. George's-in-the-East, where people were provided with houses who voted for certain County Councillors. [Mr. STEAD-MAN: Oh, oh!] The hon. Gentleman may say what he likes, but that was given in evidence before two of Her Majesty's judges, and it is only part and parcel of the political system which has been developed by the London County Council.
MR. STEADMAN: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman—
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I am not a right hon. I wish I were.
MR. STEADMAN: My point is this. The learned Gentleman has brought a charge against certain members of the London County Council.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
MR. STEADMAN: Is it right for the learned Gentleman to bring a charge without substantiating that charge by evidence?
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: The fact I allude to was given in evidence before two judges, and was tested in cross-examination by a gentleman well known in this House, namely, Judge Willis, who for some time represented Colchester as a very advanced Radical. Of all the hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate to-night for political purposes only one has dealt with the real crux of the question. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Hoxton, but I agree with his suggestion that before any local authority is allowed to unhouse persons living on a particular area, they should provide new buildings for them. That is perfectly possible. I would point out that when the Guinness trustees built these blocks they provided
1350
single rooms for single women and single rooms for single men at 2s. 9d. a week. No local authority has ever provided rooms at such a rate as that, or has dealt with the matter in such a satisfactory way as the Guinness trustees. The London County Council have not been successful, because, as I have said, they have sought for popularity. If any hon. Member will visit the Boundary Street scheme, he will see the space which is wasted and which might be utilised for buildings, and when the London County Council say that they have lost £200,000, I say that they have lost it because the London County Council is not composed of business men. They are faddists, and are very often paid by trade societies not to advance the interest of the ratepayers but to try socialistic schemes at the public expense. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for South Shields with reference to railway communication, it is most unfair to attack the majority of the London railways. Two or three years ago before a Committee in this House, the Great Northern Railway supported a practically competing scheme—an underground railway under its own line. The Great Northern said that the suburban traffic was so enormous that they welcomed any proposition for its relief. The Great Eastern Railway has done the same. Is it right that the London County Council, who waste our money year by year by engaging gentlemen who have no experience even in running omnibuses, should also be empowered to start ambitious railway schemes at great expense? Who are the men in the London County Council who are engaged in these commercial enterprises? They are men who, as a rule, have never earned £150 a year in any profession to which they belong, and these are the people who are to be trusted with the spending of millions of the ratepayers money.
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

NAVAL RESERVE (MOBILISATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not wish to oppose the Bill. There was, however, a corresponding Bill in Scotland which provided an appeal to the Local Government Board in Scotland as to whether a removal should or should not be allowed. He thought there ought to be a similar provision in the present Bill with reference to England. He might mention that one of the circumstances which the Local Government Board in Scotland considered when appealed to regarding a removal was how far the removal, if effected, would remove parents from children employed in the country. He only wished that what was done in Scotland should also be done in England.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)said that the Local Government Board would rather not have the duty placed upon them of deciding appeals regarding the deportation of paupers. The Scotch Local Government Board had not so much to do, and it would be adding a very serious duty to the work of the Local Government Board in England. However, if the hon. Member wished, the matter could be considered in Committee.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENagreed that it would be desirable that the Local Government Board should have the power suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. He had brought under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board a case in which it was proposed to deport a widow and her children from Cardiff to an Irish union. It was true that the woman was born in that particular union, but she left it when a child, married in America, and for years her husband and herself spent their earnings in Cardiff, and the Cardiff Union now proposed to deport her. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was rather sympathetic, and he thought it was a wise provision that a person about to be deported should have the right of appeal to the Local Government Board, as was the case in Scotland.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MIDWIVES (EXPENSES).
Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.
COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS (REMUNERATION)
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any remuneration and allowances which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Burial Grounds."
Resolution agreed to.

COUNTY COUNCILS (ELECTIONS) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid that some explanation should be given regarding the Bill. They had such a number of Bills introduced every session to amend the Act of 1891 that they would soon require a consolidating Bill.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid the Bill was purely formal. It would save expense and obviate the necessity for holding a useless meeting.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid the House ought to have fuller information.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid that, following the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act, the Act of 1891 fixed a statutory meeting every year, but as County Council elections only took place every third year this was very inconvenient and the Bill would alter this.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed for Wednesday next.
Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
John Lord Bishop of Hereford was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Widnes and Runcorn Bridge.
Exeter Corporation.
London and South-Western Railway.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: —
North British Railway [H.L.]—(Petition for additional Provision).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision, of the Crystal Palace Company, under their common seal; together with proposed clauses and amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [H.L.]
Bill, approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, presented, on petition, and read 1a.
MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAIL- WAY BILL [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAIL- WAY BILL [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee and to produce documents.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.] (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PRO VISION).
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred
1182
to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
RAW MARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUN CIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (STOCK) BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House, That the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 22nd March last discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 6th March and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 22nd of March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKET) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL.
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.
    MAIDENHEAD GAS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    WOLVERHAMPTON, ESSINGTON, AND CANNOCK CHASE JUNCTION RAIL- WAY BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
  LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    REDHILL GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    RUGELEY GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.

    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection. That the following Lords be pro- posed to the House to form the Select Committee to join with the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the said Bills, viz.:—

    V. Llandaf

    L. Welby.

    L. Wenlock.

    L. Pirbright.

    The said Report to be considered Tomorrow.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

    RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMA- TION BILLS.
    Report from the Committee of Selection proposing that the Lords following be
    1184
    named of the Select Committee to join with the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the following Bills:—
    Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.].
    Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [H.L.].
    Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.].
    viz.: —

    E. Spencer.

    L. Hawkesbury.

    L. Chelmsford.

    L. Glanusk.

    Considered (according to Order), and agreed to. Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with a Committee of the House of Commons in appointment of a Chairman. All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills, to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (METROPOLI TAN DIVISION).
  General Report, for the year 1899, by J. King, Esq., Senior Chief Inspector.
  EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year 1899.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 10 (1900).
  Convention between the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States of America relating to the settlement of certain claims in Samoa by arbitration; signed at Washington, 7th November, 1899; ratifications exchanged at Washington, 7th March, 1900.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the year ending 31st December, 1899; in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon

  1185
  certain accidents which were inquired into.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS).
  Additional Articles to existing money order agreements between the General Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the General Post Offices of Austria, Hungary, Luxemburg, Norway, Roumania, and Switzerland respectively, providing for an exchange of telegraph money order's.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL RE- PORT AND STATISTICS FOR THE YEAR 1899).
  Part I. District Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged, according to the inspection districts.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, showing the acreage and produce of crops, prices of corn, and number of live stock, with agricultural statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1899.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2418. France (Corsica).

  No. 2419. Germany (Samoa).

  No. 2420. Spain (Malaga and District).

  No. 2421. China (Ningpo).

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Nine Orders relating to the landing of animals from the "Gladys Royle," "Majestic," "Charterhouse," "Orono," "Tanagra," "Matin," "Zeeburg," "Lang-ham," and "Marselisborg." Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sundays, of the Conference of the Rural Deanery of Eccleshall, in the county of Stafford; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  BURIAL AUTHORITIES (CREMATION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable burial authorities to make provision for the burning of bodies of dead persons.— Was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday, the 18th instant. (No. 70.)

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD REAY: My Lords, my noble Friend, when he introduced this Bill, described it as a, very complicated one, † and I certainly shall not differ from him on that score. This Bill is, indeed, exceedingly complicated. I do not intend to go into its details, but only to discuss what are, I suppose, its main features and its main principles. The first step taken in the direction of improving the existing situation is the consolidation of the various sources of income at the disposal of the Scottish Education Department Into a central fund. In addition to those mentioned in Clause 1, we must, of course, take the Science and Arts grants, although I quite understand why they are not included. All that I should like to say on that point is, that I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to obtain greater freedom with regard to the conditions under which those grants are distributed. The noble Lord has not taken into his central fund the equivalent grant, and I was very glad that he did not, on the introduction of the Bill, repudiate the notion that he might annex that fund, or, at all events, a part of it. Last year I believe it amounted to £160,000. I should be quite satisfied if— at all events—the noble Lord saw his way to take the. excess above £100,000— namely, £60,000—into his central fund. The next step is the formation of a local higher education committee in each district mentioned in Schedule 1. Very wisely, I think, the noble Lord does not propose to place these committees on a uniform basis, but to frame a scheme for each district in accordance with the widely divergent needs of the various
  † For Lord Balfour's speech introducing the Bill, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxx., page 1031.

  1187
  districts. The only question which arises on that point is whether a certain fixed proportion should not be given to the school board representatives, and whether the presence of the inspector at their meetings, of which I heartily approve, does not make it unnecessary to add to the committee nominees of the Department, especially if the Bill, as I hope, will ultimately sanction the establishment of a consultative committee, of which I shall have something to say by-and-by. Those committees will have at their disposal the greater part of the Higher Education Fund, and each committee will have the power to determine what schools or classes in the district shall be admitted to the benefit of the Act, of approving or not approving of the expenditure incurred on behalf of those schools, and of determining the scale of fees for any particular school or class; for the purpose of ascertaining the deficiency arising from the excess of expenditure over income. This deficiency is the corner-stone of the fabric of the Bill. Institutions such as higher schools under school boards which at present have no deficit will have to create a deficit in order to obtain the benefits of the Act. It seems to me that it would have been more opportune to ascertain not the financial deficit of each institution, but the educational need of each district, in order that those districts which stand most in need of relief should obtain the greater share of the fund. Under the Bill a district which can establish a large aggregate of deficiencies of individual institutions obtains a large share of the fund. The Bill further proposes to meet the deficiency, as regards one-fourth, by a district rate. It creates a new rating authority. I wish to ask why a school or class which serves one locality only should receive money from a district rate; and why, in that case, a local rate should not be considered sufficient. Where a school has a purely local character it seems to me that the local rate, as at present supplemented by grants from the central fund, ought to meet all the requirements. The principle which has been adopted in Clause 6 of the Bill seems to be the right one. In Clause 6 you have the rule laid down that in the case of an institution which serves, or is capable of serving, the interests of higher education in several
  1188
  districts, those districts shall contribute towards its provision, maintenance, and equipment. That clause adopts what, in my opinion is a right criterion, and it-might very well be extended so as to provide that where an institution serves the interests of one district only that district should be made to supply the contribution, and that where an institution only serves the interests of one parish that parish should supply the rate. If it serves the interests of more parishes the principle of Clause 42 of the Education Act of 1872 can be applied. It appears to me quite clear that, if we are to have a district rate, such a rate can only be used for the purposes of the central institutions mentioned in Clause 6, and for the institutions which are not mentioned in the Bill, but which ace already in existence, and which, I hope, will become more numerous— namely, central institutions for one district only. Where the district only is served by one institution the district rate should be applied without a local rate, and if the local higher education committee wishes to establish such an institution I think powers of management should be given to it. I do not object in principle to the district rate, but I think it should be carefully limited both in its scope and in its amount. The Secondary Education Royal Commission for England also suggested that rating powers should be given to the local authorities of which they proposed the constitution, but they limited the amount which could be levied to twopence in the £. If the equivalent grant or part of it were used for the purposes of this Bill, the rating power could at first be kept in abeyance and regarded, as it should be, as a power in reserve. The passage of the Bill would undoubtedly be much smoother if that were done. Under the Bill there is power to give one-fourth of the deficiency out of the district rate to Voluntary schools. I believe that is an entirely new principle, and one which I am sure will not be universally approved of in Scotland. I think it would be wiser to limit the grants given to Voluntary schools to a distribution from the central fund. Sub-section 3 of Clause 5 will necessarily give rise to much friction, and I would suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be better to insert in that sub-section a power of appeal, from the decision of the local

  1189
  higher education committee to the Department in any case in which the managers of a school or the school hoard are not satisfied with the decision of the committee, I would further suggest that local higher education committees should have the power of accepting the transfer of endowments or trusts from the existing governing bodies or trustees for the purposes of the trust in any case where those bodies or the trustees would desire to surrender their administration to the local higher education committees. There is no consultative committee in the Bill. Such a committee has been considered desirable in England, and has been established in Wales, and I have not heard any reason given which makes it superfluous for Scotland. The present Secretary for Scotland, with his intimate knowledge of the education question, may, perhaps, not stand in need of a consultative committee, but Secretaries for Scotland are not selected on the ground of their knowledge of Scottish education, and it is likely that some of his successors will regret that a consultative committee was not introduced in the Bill. It is quite true that the Secretary for Scotland can consult, informally, anyone he chooses, but the advice thus received has not the same value as advice which is given by a body created ad hoc, in which an exchange of opinions takes place and in which the representatives speak under a sense of responsibility. I do not wish to have a consultative committee composed merely of representative educational experts. I suggest the appointment on the consultative committee of practical men representatives of the industries, trade, and agriculture of Scotland. It is of the utmost importance that for the purposes of technical education we should obtain the advice of employers of scientific and skilled labour. The fact that the Bill gives great power to the Department, to which I have taken no objection, is an additional reason why the Department should be in communication with some body of representatives in Scotland who are on the spot and thoroughly acquainted with the educational needs and interests of the country. I cordially approve of the inclusion in Clause 16 of technical instruction in the expression "higher education.'' I think that gives a guarantee that technical education will not be overlooked. Technical education, taken in the wider sense in which it has been de-
  1190
  fined in Clause 16, will require a great deal of additional expenditure in order to place it on a proper footing, and I hope that if funds are reserved in Clause 1 they will be reserved mainly for the purpose of establishing some central technological institute, for which, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, there is a great opening. I have not spoken in opposition to the Bill. I wish to see it become law as soon as possible. In Scotland the education question has never been a dividing line between the two parties, and I hope it never will. Therefore I trust the noble Lord will give due consideration to the suggestions which I have made, and which, as he knows, I have made, in a friendly spirit.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, when he introduced this Bill to your Lordships' notice, said that —
  "Its chief purpose is to organise in one system the administration of the various funds which are now devoted to the purpose of higher education in its various branches; and also to appoint local representative bodies and give them statutory powers for the management of higher education."
  Those, my Lords, are objects with which we all have the strongest possible sympathy; and for my own part I repeat, as I said on the introduction of the Bill, that I will give all the support I can to the principle of the Bill. At the same time I am bound to point out that I do not think the measure altogether comes up to the high ideal which the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has set before him, and I think that in some of its methods and in some of its proposals it will require serious amendment before it can be accepted as. a satisfactory solution of the secondary education question in Scotland, The Bill is, of course, full of detail, and there are many points which invite criticism; but in the few remarks I shall make to your Lordships I shall confine myself to the criticism of two main points, which I think require amendment, leaving the smaller points of criticism for future stages of the Bill when they may more appropriately be brought forward. The two points with regard to which I desire to say a few words are—first, the constitution, powers, and functions of the district committees which are set up under the Bill; and,

  1191
  secondly, the method of dealing with the fund which is accumulated under the provisions of Clause 1. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the exact constitution of these committees. The committee is to consist, in the first place, of a certain number of representatives of the county council of the district; secondly, of representatives of the town council in the case of burghs that have a population above 10,000; thirdly, of representatives of school boards within the district who give facilities for secondary education; fourthly, of representatives of other schools in the district— for example Voluntary schools—which also give secondary education; and, fifthly, of certain members to be nominated by the Scottish Education Department. Now, what are the powers and functions of the committees which are so to be constituted? They are found very fully set out in Clause 5, which consists of no less than twelve sub-sections. In nine of these subsections it is clearly brought out that these district committees are really to be but the figureheads of the management of secondary education in their various districts, and that the body which is to wield the whole power is the Scottish Education Department. It is perfectly evident that not a finger will any one of these district committees be able to move without the express sanction and authority of the Department. I will take a single instance. The committee will not even be able to put a school on its list or remove one without first consulting the Department. There is another clause which shows what a limited power these local higher education committees are to have. In the seventh sub-section it is laid down that whilst they may employ such teachers as they like, and pay what they like to those teachers for the teaching of special subjects in the various districts, either in the school board classes or outside them, yet they cannot do so without the consent of the individual school boards. I make no objection to that so far as the classes within the School Board schools are concerned, but to prevent the committee from constituting special classes outside the school board unless the consent of the board is obtained seems to me an improper limitation of the powers of the committee. In only two sub-sections of the clause have these local committees unlimited power, and both cases relate to the raising or the
  1192
  payment of money. In Sub-section 4, it is laid down that—
  "A local higher education committee shall have power to pay the deficiency ascertained as aforesaid to the extent hereinafter provided."
  And the last sub-section provides that—
  "A local higher education committee shall have power to defray all expenses properly incurred by them in connection with the administration of this Act."
  Of course, it is perfectly proper that the local higher education committees should have power to pay their way; but let us sec from what source they are to obtain the funds with which to pay their way. This Bill constitutes the committees new rating authorities in every district throughout Scotland. I am not one of those who say that it is not right to make any contribution from the rates for the purpose of secondary education, but in this Bill there is no limitation as in the English Act and the intermediate Act for Wales. This new authority is given the power, not of raising a special rate within its own district, but, so to speak, of commandeering it from the local authorities. That may be a proper course, but if so the committee set up under the Bill is not the proper authority to execute that power. I think that, without exception, in the past rating authorities have been drawn from the representatives of the ratepayers. In this case it is true that half the members of the committee are to be drawn from county or burgh councils, and that representatives of the school boards which give secondary education are also to sit upon it; but it is surely an entirely new principle to admit to a rating committee the representatives of Voluntary schools and the nominees of the Scottish Education Department. We are not told what will be the proportion either of representatives of the Voluntary schools or of nominees of the Scottish Department; but I do contend that if under this Bill you are going to give large and unusual powers, you ought to take care that the local education committees are truly and entirely representative of the ratepayers. Leaving that question, I come to the funds which are to provide for secondary education in Scotland under this Bill. We find that three separate funds, amounting in all to about £150,000 a year, are to be handed over to the Department to administer as a Central Secondary

  1193
  Education Fund for Scotland. My noble friend proposes to make, as a first charge on that fund, a charge for the expenses of inspection, for certain "equalising grants" of about £3 3s. per head for the pupils in attendance at certain secondary schools, and also for providing contributions to central institutions which serve more than one district. He in that way lays hold of about £40,000 out of the £150,000 which the fund is now calculated to produce annually. That leaves £110,000 to be dealt with by the Department as may be hereafter provided. The charge on that £110,000 in the first instance is to supply one half of the deficiency between the income and expenditure of those schools which are selected by the Department and the secondary committees. I want your Lordships for a moment to consider what is the origin of the funds, and whether it is fair that they should be given over in this way for distribution under entirely new conditions. While I thoroughly agree that it is desirable that these three funds should be applied to secondary education in Scotland, I take exception to the manner in which they are to be applied. They have been given at different times as aids to the relief of local taxation. I regard the funds as distinctly belonging in equal proportions to every ratepayer in Scotland, and I contend that every district is entitled to have a fair and equal share, and to be told what amount it will have in aid of secondary education within its bounds. In the past we who have been connected with the rural and Highland counties in Scotland—I myself am closely connected with one of each —have always complained that the smaller and more sparsely populated districts have not had their full share of these funds owing to the method that was adopted in their distribution, and my own belief is that the effect of this Bill will be to still further reduce the amount given to rural and Highland districts. There is another fund which is available for education in Scotland—namely, the Equivalent Grant Fund, which is put at £110,000, but which in recent years has risen to a very much larger amount. That is an annual sum which is given in Scotland very much on the same lines as the other funds included in the Bill, and the localities are able to apply it in relief of rates and other purposes. I confess that the local authorities have applied it but little to
  1194
  any other purpose than the relief of rates. They have, perhaps, on an average, given £1,000 a year out of between £140,000 and £160,000 to educational purposes, and another average of about £1,000 a year to other purposes, such as public parks, bandstands, bridges, and the like. I have always held that these grants have been the subject of a great deal of waste of money, and so far as this Bill brings them under one head I welcome it. But I still say that under the Bill each district ought to share equally and should not share according merely to accidental circumstances. I am sorry the noble Lord does not make use of the Equivalent Grant Fund and allow a local authority, when it chooses, to draw from its share of that fund for the purposes of secondary education rather than to place a new charge on the rates. I believe that in the interests of secondary education itself this would be better, and I think local authorities would be willing to give a grant from the Equivalent Grant Fund when they would only impose a rate on the district under pressure. Let me give a little example of the way in which it seems to me the money arrangements of this Bill will act. My own county—Berwick—has decided to petition both Houses of Parliament in favour of the Bill, with amendments to secure that the county shall have its full share of the funds under the Bill and also powers to contribute out of the Equivalent Grant Fund towards secondary education within its limits. In Berwick I think we rather went in advance of most counties in Scotland. From the very beginning we devoted the whole of our share of the residue grant to the purposes of technical education. The result was that we instituted a number of dairy, agricultural, and navigation classes. We paid the expenses of schoolmasters who wished to attend classes in Edinburgh to qualify them to teach special classes in their various schools. These classes were more or less successful, but after the novelty had worn off we found they were less well attended, and we were never able to test the amount of good they did by any examinations. We came to the conclusion that we would do better if we concentrated our efforts. The same sort of thing was going on in connection with our Secondary Education Fund. We tried to spread the money, but came to the conclusion that it would be wiser to

  1195
  establish a central school in the county. One was established, and the technical education committee, out of funds they had saved in the earlier years, were able to contribute between £1,000 and £1,200 to the building fund, and something like £200 a year to the general expenses of the school, both on the condition that technical education was given within the school. Then came the power, two years ago, to combine the two funds. We at once took advantage of that, and consequently the whole of our residue grant and our secondary education money has been brought into one fund already. We have this year obtained £300 under the Local Taxation Act, making altogether between £1,500 and £1,600 which we shall have this year to deal with. From that we give £60 in aid of the secondary department in the Coldstream School, and £40 to the secondary department in the Lander School, the rest of the money being devoted to our central, secondary and technical school in Duns. By this means we give completely free secondary education, and also pay the railway fares of students attending from all parts of the county. More than that, we even make an additional allowance to those who do not live near a railway station to enable them to come by other moans. All that is carried on by the amount we receive from these funds. Now what will be our condition under this Bill? I maintain that we shall be infinitely worse off than we are now. In the first place, out of the £40,000 that the noble Lord takes hold of, we shall ouly receive such share as we may have under the equalising grant. The expenses of inspection in Berwickshire will be very small indeed, and therefore under that head we shall be losers and not gainers. But when I come to the question as to what we shall receive out of the remainder, I have to point out that under the Bill it is laid down that first shall be determined the difference between income and expenditure. The whole of our income will then consist of £3 a head equalising grant, and such grants as we may get from the Science and Art Department. We have no endowments and no fees. The whole of the remainder will be deficit. Of that deficit we can only receive one half from the fund, and we shall have to impose a rate for the other half. It will therefore
  1196
  be seen that we shall have to impose a considerable rate on the county, and at the same time receive a very much smaller sum in aid of secondary education out of these throe funds than we now get by receiving our whole share. I have no doubt that there are many similar cases to be found in Scotland. Let me just repeat the changes which I think are necessary in order to make the Bill satisfactory. In the first place, I say that if you are to retain the district committees as rating bodies, you must get rid of all the members of those bodies except the representatives of the local authorities and the school boards. If you are going to take away the rating power and establish them merely as education committees, then I have little to say as to the constitution of the committees except this, that instead of the Department nominating extra members on those bodies, the proper thing would be for the bodies themselves to co-opt such members as are wanted. The Department is to be well represented on these committees as it is, because the district inspector is to have a seat upon them. He will be able to express the views of the Department, and, in turn, to report to the Department the views of the various committees. The powers of the district committees should be greatly freed from the overburdening hand of the Department. The committees must be given initiative. I believe that if you get good district committees, and give them full power, and thus excite an interest to push education in their particular districts, you will get a much greater advance in the interests of secondary education than would be possible by throwing all the work on the Department. With regard to the distribution of the fund set up in Clause 1, let it be divided equitably amongst the different districts in Scotland; that is to say, amongst the various counties and the six school board districts mentioned in the Bill, if you like, throw the cost of inspection as a first charge on the amount of the fund that is given to each particular district; throw the £3 a head equalising grant as a second charge, and then allow the remainder of the fund to be applied to the purposes of secondary education in the district; and if it should be found sufficient in any district to supply the whole needs of that district, then I say let it do so, and let us avoid

  1197
  any charge on the Equivalent Grant Fund or on the rates. Next I would say, give the local authorities statutory power to enable them to contribute towards secondary education within their district out of the Equivalent Grant Fund; and if it is necessary to retain the rating power, let it be limited to, say, one penny in the £, the same as in the English and Welsh Acts. I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Reay that where assistance is to be given from the rates to a school board the rate should be levied on that particular school board district. As a rule, a school board school only gives means of education to scholars within its own district. It may in some cases give education out of its district, and I would then say, bring in the other parishes who benefit; but I do think it would be far better that any deficiency should be made up from the rates within the district of the school board, and not out of the general rate of the county. But in the case of district schools which serve the whole district, the rate in respect to them should be charged on the district as a whole. Those are some of the points which seemed to me worthy of consideration, and which I desired to bring before the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland. There are many other points. I think the House will have gathered that the Bill bristles with points of detail. It seems to me perfectly impossible to deal with the Bill in Committee of this House. Neither House of Parliament is particularly fond of applying itself to Bills which concern Scotland. They affect to believe that they cannot understand Scottish methods. The only satisfactory way of dealing with the Bill is to refer it to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. That would secure for it a thorough discussion, and would facilitate its progress and secure a far more valuable measure than the one which the noble Lord has introduced.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I concur in a good many of the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, but with his last remark I am afraid I do not agree at all. If I may offer any advice to the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, it will be not to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This question of higher education does not affect Scotland
  1198
  alone; it affects England and Wales as well, and it seems to me that, approximately, the same principles ought to be adopted in dealing with the question in all parts of the kingdom. I believe the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council intends shortly to introduce a Bill, which I presume will be something similar to this, for England, and I hope that before we get into Committee on this Bill, when there will be considerable discussion as to detail, we shall have an opportunity of seeing the Bill of the noble Duke, and of being able to compare the principles which he proposes to apply to England with the principles which are applied by this Bill to Scotland. Like the other noble Lords who have spoken, I am not at all unfriendly to the Bill; but this is a subject which cannot be disposed of without careful and minute consideration, for the issues of it are very important. I would impress upon the House that this Bill is one of excessive centralisation. I do not think I have ever read a Bill in which the principle of centralisation was so strongly enforced. This Bill, speaking generally, hands over higher education in Scotland —including, indirectly, rating—to the Scottish Education Department. Every Scotsman knows that we are extremely fortunate in the present head of the Scottish Education Department. The noble Lord has made a thorough and careful study of education as applied to Scotland, and has done exceedingly good work in that direction. But while expressing every regard for the present head of the Department, I do not think we can altogether assent to handing everything which is connected with higher education over to the central Department. This proposal will not be approved of in Scotland, nor do I think, if you select your higher education committees entirely on the principles laid down in this Bill, that you will obtain the services of many good men, who would be only too anxious to serve if they had something really in their power to do. In the first place, the existing funds are entirely handed over to the Education Department. Speaking for myself, I do not say I object to that. With limitations I think that is necessary; but when we come to the formation of the committees we find that they are to be constituted entirely by the Department. The Department are to make inquiry and

  1199
  to prepare a scheme, and the only limitation which is imposed upon them is that half of the members are to be nominated by the county councils and the town councils. If the committee were purely an educational committee, it might not be necessary to say so much about it; but, as my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth pointed out, it is a rating authority. As soon as the difference between income and expenditure has been ascertained, and the sum to be paid has been divided between the local higher education committee and the representatives of the particular school or schools interested, the local committee issues a precept, and that precept must be complied with by the county council. That is to say, with regard to higher education, you give to a body which may be nominated up to one half by the Department an absolute power of imposing an unlimited rate.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): Not nominated up to one half by the Department. At least one half must be municipal, and the whole of the school board representatives are included in the other half.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It does not follow, so far as the county is concerned, that more than one half of the local committee will be elected by the county representatives. You create, as I have said, a local committee which has absolute power of imposing an unlimited rate; and the purposes for which this rate is levied are not limited to the purposes of higher education. They extend to central institutions and to bursaries, and at the name time you have taken away entirely from the control of the committee the funds out of which the local committees at the present time make disbursements towards higher education. I insist upon that a little, because I think it is necessary to point out what a very large departure in this way you are making. You have never done anything like it anywhere else. In Wales the procedure is the very reverse. The Welsh Intermediate Education Act says—
  "Where a County Council recommends that any annual contribution shall be made out of the county rate a scheme under this Act may direct the contribution so recommended, or any less contribution, to be made accordingly."
  In that case the initiative rests with the
  1200
  representatives of the ratepayers— namely, with the county council; and the local committee can only propose a contribution of that sort if it has originally been suggested to them by the county council, and then only to the extent to which the county council suggests. The rate, moreover, is limited to one halfpenny in the £. But in this Bill the rate is absolutely unlimited in amount. The bursaries and matters of that sort are suggested and approved by the Department, which has had handed over to it the existing funds. It does not follow that the Department will have a very large amount of money to grant to the county councils for these purposes. It is conceivable that the money may nearly be exhausted, but the deficiency, whatever it may be, must be provided in the first instance by means of a precept from the local committee, which must be complied with by the county council. With regard to the committees themselves, I should be glad if the noble Lord could find some way to make them a little more representative, or a little less nominated by the Department. I believe there will be a good deal of feeling in Scotland when this matter is properly understood.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As the Bill now stands, there cannot be more than two or three on each committee nominated by the Department.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I merely take the wording of the Bill, which says—
  "The Department shall, after due inquiry, prepare a scheme for the constitution of the Local Higher Education Committee in each district,"
  and so on. It provides certain general rules, but the scheme entirely starts from the Department, and does not in any way originate with or depend upon the local authorities. The local authorities have always taken a great interest in this matter, and they would naturally desire to have a little more power in their hands and be allowed a little more to say in the constitution of the local authorities than is provided by the Bill. While the expenditure will be considerably higher than it has hitherto been, so far as the localities are concerned, the amount of public money they will receive to assist to make up the deficiency will be less. I am one of those who do not like the pro-

  1201
  posal that the charges under the Bill are to go on the local rates. I feel quite certain that if the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland could really do what he liked he would prefer to take the money from the taxpayers, for in reality it is not merely the particular ratepayers who derive the benefit from these institutions, but the whole of the country. But I know the noble Lord would be met by the old obstacle—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate the noble Lord would not get anything in the present year out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has therefore to fall back on that unfortunate person, the local ratepayer. That is all the more reason why the interests of the local ratepayer should be thoroughly looked after. Endowments are dealt with in Clause 8 of the Bill, and it is proposed that when the income from endowments is less than or equal to the proportion of the deficiency which the school has to make up it is to be applied for the purpose of meeting such proportion; and when it is greater than the sum required some of it may be handed on to provide the deficiency which is to be borne by the local Higher Education Committee. I have looked in the Bill, but have failed to find any definition of "endowments." I presume public endowments are included as well as private endowments. Is it certain that persons who have left endowments would wish to see them applied for the purpose of relieving rates, for that is what it comes to? It has been pointed out to me that a wholesale use of endowments for this purpose might very likely have a tendency to dry up private benevolence. In this matter considerable regard must be paid to the feelings and intentions of those who have provided these endowments. I quite agree with the noble Lord who spoke last in the suggestion he made as to the desirability of dividing this fund amongst the various counties and districts. There is no such proposition in the Bill, but I believe it would be very acceptable indeed throughout Scotland, where great objection is felt to altogether handing over these funds to be dealt with solely according to the wishes of the Department. No doubt we shall have ample opportunities of discussing the details of the Bill when we get into Committee.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, the noble Lords who have spoken have all of
  1202
  them professed a desire to promote the passing of this Bill into law, but I think the remarks which they have made have involved a considerable amount of rather trenchant criticism. That criticism, however, as was to be expected, was very much concerned with details, the discussion of which I imagine will be better pursued when we get to the Committee stage. I am desirous of saying a word or two on this occasion, because I was associated with the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill when he was dealing some fifteen years ago with what I may call the first stage of the subject—the reform of the endowments of Scotland. It must be a great satisfaction to the noble Lord, as it is to me, who was his colleague, that it has fallen to his lot to introduce this Bill, which proposes to perfect and complete the work then begun. I think it must also be encouraging to him to find that many of the objections which are taken now echo objections which were even more vehemently stated whet) we had this subject under consideration then. We have heard things said in this House and out of doors which revive the old argument that the benefits of the Bill are intended for the few. It is said that they ought to be left to shift for themselves, that they ought not to receive support from public money, and that if they are to be supported from this source the money should not be taken from the local rates, but from the Imperial Exchequer. I, for my part, protest against this belittling of the question. It is quite true that if we proceed simply on the counting of heads the number of those who pursue education to its higher stages must be much less than those who are benefited by primary education; but if we look beyond the mere statement of the inferiority of numbers to the assumption which I think underlies that assertion—namely, that the benefits of higher education are confined to those who are better able to pay for it, then I think we get on unsafe ground. This is contrary to the whole spirit of Scottish education, for in Scotland it has always been the pride and boast that a poor boy from the parish school could get an education which would qualify him for the university, and to rise to any eminence in life if he had capacity. We all know that the position of the parish school has, under the force of circumstances, very much altered from what it was in former days, and although no

  1203
  doubt there are still schools under the management of school boards from which boys can go to the university as they could from the parish schools of old, yet I think it will not be disputed that more is necessary to put the poor lad in a position of equality with his richer neighbours. At any rate, I think that is one of the main principles which this Bill is brought in to establish, and I imagine that if my noble friend had only wished | to bring in a Bill to regulate the schools of the well-to-do he would have proceeded on very different lines. A good deal has been said about the distribution of powers under this Bill, and I cannot help thinking that there must be some great misunderstanding about them. My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth has spoken very strongly of what he calls the wholesale interference of the Scottish Education Department. I confess that on my first reading the Bill I had some suspicions in that direction myself, but we have seen in the public prints that the Secretary for Scotland has taken an opportunity of declaring publicly that we are mistaken in this matter and that the Bill, as a matter of fact, involves a large devolution of powers to the local authorities, and that all that he desires is to maintain for the Department sufficient power to form the basis of a general system. If that definition can be established I do not suppose that many people would be inclined to take exception to it, for certainly we do require somebody to arbitrate in this matter for us, and the Scottish Education Department is the fit authority to do it. For my own part, I cannot help thinking that the phraseology of the Bill, due no doubt to the great complexity of the subject, is at fault, and means might be taken when we come to the Committee stage to make this matter very much clearer to the general public. My noble friend who spoke last alluded to the excessive centralisation of the Bill. I confess that as I read it I thought it was rather the other way. I understand the intention of the Bill is that wherever possible the management of every school and class should be in the hands of the school board of the district in which the school or class is situated, and, if I am right in this, I am bound to say that I think the Bill as a whole is in the right direction. I am not disposed to undervalue county administration, but, whatever may be possible in smaller and
  1204
  more compact counties, I am confident that in the larger ones, especially those which are split up into several districts, as is the one to which I belong, whore members have to travel a considerable distance, a minute administration of local details on the part of the central body is impossible. When we come to the administration of a school or class where it is essential that the managers should take a close interest and should be able to give adequate supervision, I quite agree that the school board is the proper authority; but there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is that to which, my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth alluded—namely, agricultural classes. We have had dairy classes in our county, and I do not see how it would be possible to organise dairy classes for each separate school board, even if each separate school board contained members who were capable of giving the supervision which is necessary. It is said that there are powers in the Bill for the Local Higher Education Committee to appoint special teachers, but, as Lord Tweedmouth pointed out, it is necessary, even in a case where the school board takes no interest in the class, to obtain the consent of the school board, and I think this is a provision which might well be modified. There is another class of persons interested for whom should like to say a word. Their case gives me some anxiety. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to draw a line by the merit certificate. The school board is to undertake the whole of the education up to the merit certificate, including, I suppose, the evening continuation classes, and the Local Higher Education Committee is to pronounce upon all the education above the merit certificate. In the administration of technical classes in our county we have been somewhat more successful than my noble friend seems to have been in Berwickshire in keeping up the interest in those classes. We have found that a very large proportion of those who attended them were young men and young women above school age who had left school before their education had reached a very advanced point, earlier, no doubt, than will be possible under the later provisions of this Bill, but who had found that some technical training would be of use to them, and were anxious to attend classes which would prepare them for usefully

  1205
  undertaking that technical training. I do not quite see how their case is provided for under this Bill. I am not sure that the School Board would have power to provide classes for people of that age, and I am not at all sure that even if they had the power they would be very willing to do it in all cases; and I am more than doubtful, if they did provide it, whether the young persons would quite so readily go to a School Board class as they would to a class established under the county authority. At any rate, it seems to me that here is a class of persons whom we may hope under the provisions of this Bill will diminish in future years, but who at present are in considerable numbers and deserve every encouragement. I should like the noble Lord to consider whether it would be possible to make provision in the Bill for the county authority being enabled to establish preparatory classes, strictly, of course, in connection with subsequent technical training for this particular class of persons who are above school age. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will no., accept the proposal of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth to send the Bill to a Select Committee, because it is of considerable importance that it should be proceeded with without delay. We have had considerable difficulties in the administration of higher education as it is at present, but the very fact that this Bill has met with so much approval will, I am afraid, possibly lead to oven greater difficulties in the future if it does not pass. For this reason. It is perfectly certain that a Bill on some such lines must pass, and everything in the meantime is left in an unsettled condition. I can illustrate this difficulty by what has happened to us in Fife during the present week. The question arose as to whether, in our schemes for secondary education for the ensuing year, we could offer the same tenure to our bursaries—two or three years—as we were wont to do, seeing that this Bill was in progress. I take it that the authorities established by this Bill will be obliged to undertake the obligations of their predecessors. I mention this only to show that such difficulties may be stated, and I think it might be well if the obligation on the future authorities was clearly expressed in the Bill. I hope my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland will persevere with the Bill and carry it into law this session.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the House proceeds to a decision, I should like to say a few words upon some of the points which have been raised in the course of this discussion. Neither elsewhere nor here have I been at all dissatisfied with the reception which this Bill has met with. I admit that it is a complicated Bill, and that it deals with large and important questions upon which it is quite possible to hold a great variety of opinions. The Bill, as has been evident in the course of this discussion, also to some extent touches upon the difference of circumstances and opinions which prevail in different parts of the country. The conditions which we have to meet in the densely populated centres of Scotland, and in the sparsely populated rural districts of the country, are very different, and it is almost impossible—in fact, I may say it is quite impossible—that any hard and fast conditions, or any cast-iron rules which may be laid down, either in the Bill or by the Department, can apply with equal fairness throughout all the districts of Scotland. A great many of the points raised are more appropriate for Committee than Second Reading, but I frankly express my indebtedness to the noble Lords for having brought before me points which have raised difficulties in their minds, because I shall thus be enabled to consider them before the Bill reaches the Committee stage. There are three main provisions round which criticism has largely centred —(1) the constitution of the local higher education committees and their relationship to the Scottish Education Department; (2) the proposal to have a power of rating for higher education in future; and (3) the method of providing and distributing the central funds which are amalgamated for the purpose of higher education in Scotland. With regard to the constitution of the Committee, it is a distinct provision of the Bill that one-half at least of the Committee are to be appointed from the various municipal authorities, whether county or burgh, while another considerable element will be appointed by the school boards. There will be also, in some cases, and in some cases only, the representatives of the managers of other schools, and there is a provision entitling the Department to appoint some members. There is no idea, either in my mind or, so far as I know, in the mind

  1207
  of anybody else, that the representatives so selected should be in very large numbers. Certainly they would always be in a small minority compared with the other elements composing the Committee. The inclusion of these members has been made use of in more quarters than one to discredit the proposal to give any rating power to the Committee whatever. I do not know what the ultimate decision of Parliament will be. If the infusion of these one or two selected representatives was to be a bar altogether to giving any rating power I would say let these representatives go. If, on the other hand, it is ultimately decided by Parliament that there is to be no rating at all for higher education in Scotland, then I would say that the case for having an infusion of members nominated by the Department is on that account immensely strengthened, because it will be largely central funds which will be dealt with. If we are not to have both Parliament must make the choice between the two. But a much more serious attack has been made on the Bill in regard to the powers to be given to the Local Higher Education Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedmouth, said they would be merely figure-heads, and would have no real power. I am quite certain that in a few minutes I can show him that that is a misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill. I maintain that there is much less centralisation in the Bill than there is in the existing condition of affairs. Under the Minutes which at present govern the administration of these funds it would be to a large extent true to say that these higher education committees are the creatures of the Department. They have no statutory powers, and almost everything they do is subject to the approval of the Department. Yet I can assure your Lordships that during the time I have been at the Scottish Education Department we have had complaints from many parts of Scotland that more authority has not been vested in the Department to give guidance and to prevent waste in districts where local committees have gone wrong. I frankly admit, however, that if real freedom is to be given it must be freedom to do wrong as well as to do right, and there is no intention in this Bill of preventing the committees from learning by experience of going wrong, provided their wrong-doing does not react unduly on other committees not respon-
  1208
  sible for their action. I would ask, however, to which of the powers given in these clauses objection is really seriously to be taken? The first of these powers given to the Department is to submit a scheme to Parliament for the constitution of the local committees. We shall, as a matter of course, do all we can to inform ourselves of local opinion, and the desire of the locality as to how these committees should be constituted, and after we have come to a decision we are obliged to present our scheme to Parliament. The question I ask is, if the Department is not to undertake this work who is to do it? There is really no other authority which is so directly under the control of Parliament, and which can proceed on something like uniform principles for the whole of Scotland. The next power given to the Department is to submit rules to Parliament in accordance with which the money is to be spent. It not proposed that these shall deal with the details of each individual case, but that they shall lay down the general principles. Without such rules there would be absolute chaos, and I venture to say that no other authority than the Department which is responsible to Parliament could lay down those general principles. Then, again, a great has been made of the power which is given to us to decide in cases of the admission or exclusion of schools. All that is really intended in the clause is that if there is a local grievance about the admission or exclusion of a school, it shall be possible to appeal to the Department. However, if it would remove the scruples of noble Lords opposite and others who agree with them, I shall be perfectly willing in Committee to insert words which will make it quite clear that the Department is only to act in cases where complaint is made to it, and is not to alter the arrangements locally made if the locality are unanimously satisfied with them. So far as the financial arrangements are concerned the committee are in each individual case supreme. In the case of their contributing to central institutions all that the Department has to do is, if the committee asks to be represented on the committee of the central institution, to say how much they should contribute in return for that representation. But the initiative of proposing to be represented rests entirely with the locality. There is

  1209
  no power whatever proposed to be given to the Department to force any locality to contribute to a central institution. Another power which we take is to carry on examinations. It is, I think, perfectly clear that the Department is the only body which can do that, if you are to have a uniform standard throughout the country, and I think it is absolutely certain that the schools throughout the country would not have confidence in any authority other than the Department for this purpose. The fact of the matter is, the functions proposed to be taken by the Department are those of co-ordinating, and organising, and preparing general rules rather than of actually exercising authority or direction. That rests with the committees, and I would suggest that, as a means of maintaining economy, and efficiency, of letting one authority know what another is doing, of comparing results, and of giving advice, it is absolutely necessary that some central authority such as the Department should have a considerable amount of power. The noble Earl who spoke last seemed to think that the county councils were being unfairly treated on account of the provision in one of the clauses that they were not to conduct classes or give education in the district of a School Board, unless with the consent of that Board; and he added, if I understood him rightly, that it might not be in the power of the School Board to give that kind of education. The proposal is not that only the School Board should give the education, but that the county committee should not give the education except with the consent of the School Board, the object being to prevent overlapping and waste, and to secure that the statutory authority which is responsible for the education of the district should have a voice in what is being done. If that provision goes too far in the opinion of the House, when we reach the Committee stage I have no doubt we shall be able to find words which will modify and improve it. The next point is as to the power given for rating for higher education. There has been a very considerable amount of misapprehension in regard to this subject, and in my opinion an entirely undue amount of alarm has been caused by the provisions of the Bill. It is perfectly certain that if the scheme of this Bill is to go on, some more funds than are now provided, either locally or by endowments, or from
  1210
  the different grants devoted to education, will be required. As I said on introducing the Bill, there are two sources from which those funds could be secured. One is the imposition of a moderate rate fairly distributed over all the localities interested; the other, the taking of some part of the Equivalent Grant which has been more than once alluded to during the discussion to-night. I deliberately chose the former course in preference to the latter for reasons of economy, and because I thought it would tend to more efficient local control. I venture to think that if this money, which everyone who has discussed this Bill has admitted is required, is to be raised, economy will be more readily studied if the funds are taken out of the rates than if they are paid out of the Equivalent Grant. We do not require a fixed sum. We could not say to each district, "you shall have such and such a portion of the Equivalent Grant for this purpose," because the needs of each district would vary, and such a course would tend to the giving of more money than was required in some districts and perhaps not enough in others. I say again, as I said on introducing the Bill, that if the deliberate judgment of Parliament is that it would be wiser to take a part of the Equivalent Grant which is now in the hands of the local authorities rather than to give a power of rating, I do not know that I shall offer any very strenuous opposition to the proposal. But this I do impress upon the House, that someone provides this money. There is a sort of idea in the locality that when you get money from the Imperial Funds it drops from the skies. I believe the guarantees for economy are better if you have the ratepayers and those they elect looking after the expenditure than if you hand over a portion of the Equivalent Grant Fund. The amount of money to be spent under the provisions of the Bill will depend on the local committee and not on the Department. It is said that these committees are not to be directly representative. I would point out that there are precedents for giving power to issue a precept upon the rates to a body not directly elected. The District Lunacy Boards, for instance, have that power at the present time over a great part of Scotland, but I have said enough to indicate my position in regard to those provisions, and a further and

  1211
  detailed discussion on the point must stand over until the Committee stage. I think it was indicated by my noble friend Lord Camperdown that he thought a rate for higher education was in itself wrong, and ought not to be imposed, but this is no new feature in Scotland, for at this moment burgh school boards which have higher schools do rate for higher education. The School Board of Edinburgh spend £2,000 or.£3,000 in that direction. I have seen it sometimes suggested that by imposing a rate for higher education you are rating the poor for the benefit of those who are better off. A greater fallacy was never suggested. The well-to-do somehow or other will get their children educated, but it is the humbler classes, who are unable to send their clever children away from home to get this education, that are more prejudiced if there is no public provision of which they can avail themselves Whatever noble Lords may say, the present provision is unjust to some localities. Lord Reay seems to think that you can confine the rating for a higher school to the very district which it at present serves, and I think Lord Tweedmouth suggested that you could divide schools into two classes —those which do and those which do not serve any given school district; but you cannot make that distinction. There is hardly a burgh school in Scotland which does not do a great amount of good in educating children beyond the limit of the burgh. I will give the House an example of what I mean. The towns of Stirling and Dumfries are both situated at the edge of the county. Children come to the High School of Stirling from the districts outside, and very often the ratepayers of these burghs feel that it is an injustice that they should be rated for the benefit of other districts; and, so far from its being unjust to rate the county districts for the High school which is in the burgh, it will be putting the burden on the very shoulders of those who have in the past received the benefits. I think there are undue fears felt as to the amount which this rate may reach. More than once the term has been used that it is "unlimited." If it is thought worth while, and if it will take away opposition, I am perfectly willing to impose a limit, though I think experience has shown that a statutory limit is not always successful. Those who have
  1212
  studied the financial provisions of this Bill will see that they afford a very effective limit. The total amount available from the central funds, after the preferential charges are taken off, is about £100,000, and the localities have to provide an equivalent sum, half of which will be obtained by fees and endowments and from other sources of income, so that at the most all that is likely to be asked for locally for the purposes of the Bill is not more than £45,000 or £50,000. I believe it will be found that there is in the financial arrangements of the Bill as effective a check as it is possible to give on the amount that will be drawn from the rates for higher education. Both Lord Reay and Lord Tweedmouth made some comments upon the method of distributing the higher education funds. If I understood Lord Reay rightly, he said we ought to have ascertained in each case the educational needs of each locality, but he did not give us any standard which we were to apply, and I must say it would be very difficult indeed to find one. I myself shrink from undertaking the task, and I do not know what standard I should apply. Am I to take into account endowments, or am I not? If I am, then those localities will no doubt suffer. If I am not to do so, I do not know what is meant by taking into consideration educational needs. My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth suggested that there should be equal distribution of the funds over the various districts. I do not know in what way that is to be done, whether it is to be by population or rateable value. I prefer the method in the Bill, which proportions the grant to the efforts of the locality, and is, so to speak, a payment by results. It is to encourage those who will put their hands into their own pockets. Lord Tweedmouth brought forward the case of sparsely populated and rural districts, and said they would suffer under the Bill. He instanced the case of the school at Duns. I should be very sorry if the county of Berwick should suffer to the extent the noble Lord seems to fear; but I will look carefully into the matter, and, if his fears are well founded, will endeavour to find some means of meeting the difficulty. At the same time, I would point out that in an Education Bill it is not easy to take into account questions of sparse populations and such questions as my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth has raised,

  1213
  which are rather economic than educational. If districts are poor we should endeavour to find some other means of meeting their needs, as we have done under the provisions for elementary education. The noble Lord who spoke first (Lord Reay) mentioned the question of the Consultative Committee. I think he was the only noble Lord who took any interest in that proposal. It has been discussed and debated since the Bill was introduced, and, so far as I am concerned, I can only say that I have had quite as many representations against the idea as I have had in favour of it. I still prefer the view that those who are interested in any particular subject should make their own suggestions to the Department. The noble Lord said that a Consultative Committee could be formed of those who were interested in trade and agriculture, so that the Department might have advice on both those questions. But I venture to suggest, situated as we are, that it is better that those interested in trade and technical education should put forward their own views, pure and undenfiled, straight to the Department. I am, therefore, as at present advised, entirely unconvinced of the necessity for a Consultative Committee in Scotland. The noble Lord opposite will remember that on the introduction of this Bill I made him a promise that before the Second Heading I would endeavour to have made public the principles upon which we propose to divide the grant of £35,000 under the minute of 1898. I had hoped that we might have been able to publish the exact details of the distribution, but we have not been able to do so. We have, however, decided what are the fairest lines to proceed upon, and three elements have entered into our consideration. Firstly, we think that, in accordance with the analogy of other minutes, there should be a fixed payment to each school in recognition of its status as a higher class school. That fixed payment has been given at £150. Secondly, there is to be a capitation grant on the attendance of pupils over twelve years of age. We do not think that attendance should be the deciding element for the whole grant, but we do think that it should be an important element. Thirdly, we thought that the grant should boar a certain relation to the local rate, and that an allowance should be made to cover any rate over 1d. in the £. Lastly,
  1214
  to prevent any undue disproportion between the grants, we have thought it right to fix a minimum of £300 and a maximum of £750. Grants on this basis have been announced to all the various schools concerned, and, so far as is known at present, they have been accepted as reasonable and fair. Certain amounts still remain to meet contingencies, the distribution of which will engage the attention of the Department. I have only to say again, in conclusion, that I have no reason to complain of the reception the Bill has met with. I do hope that the noble Lord opposite will not persevere in his suggestion for a Select Committee. It is clear that the main point of the controversy, the greatest point of difficulty, with regard to the Bill is that of rating, and I would venture to suggest that the provisions with reference to that would be better dealt with in another place than in your Lordships' House, and that it is more advisable that a final decision upon them should be come to elsewhere. I propose to take the Committee stage upon this day week.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord could fix the Committee stage for Monday week instead of Thursday, as that would allow more time in which to propose the Amendments which some of us desire to move.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My reason for pressing on is that I am very anxious that the Bill should, if possible, go to another place before the Whitsuntide recess, but unless the other stages of the Bill are taken with rapidity we may have some difficulty in achieving that object. I will, however, consider the request of the noble Lord that a little longer period should elapse before the Committee stage is taken.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill road 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday, the 21st inst.

  BRITISH MUSEUM KILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for the Third Heading road.
  Moved that the Bill be now read the

  1215
  Third time.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL OF HALSBURY): My Lords, I do not wish to object to the Third Reading, but I think that there are points with regard to the Bill which will deserve consideration in another place. I can testify to the difficulty, growing year by year, which the Trustees of the British Museum have in dealing with such things as railway guides and other matter which nobody can possibly suggest will be of any historical value, and which it is desirable to get rid of. At the same time, if the Bill is passed in its present shape serious questions may arise as to what is of historical importance, and I am under the impression that the Bill does not sufficiently provide for giving Parliament the opportunity of determining what shall be destroyed and what shall be kept. A difficulty has occurred to me with regard to the form of the schedule, and I confess I regret that those who are responsible for it have observed the practice, most mischievous in our legislation, of legislating by reference and not making the schedule applicable to the matter in hand. While I have no desire to hamper the progress of the Bill, I do not think it is sufficiently provided that Parliament should have the power of selecting what documents should be destroyed and what should not. Of course, what is proposed is that the schedule of the documents to be disposed of shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but there is no power of selection given to Parliament. I have suggested to the right rev. Prelate who has moved the Third Reading on behalf of the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel) that those who have charge of the Bill in another place should have their attention directed to that part of the machinery, so that the necessary precautions may be taken to give Parliament the power of disapproving of the destruction of one or more classes of documents and of allowing the order to proceed with regard to the rest. The right rev. Prelate has promised that that shall be done, and, therefore, I shall not oppose the Third Heading of the Bill.
  On Question agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.
  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons, viz.—

  E. Crewe.

  V. Hampden.

  V. Peel.

  L. Windsor.

  L. Rothschild.

  Ordered that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a chairman. Then a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their message of the 6th of April last, to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten of the clock.