Sitting of 9 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in 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.:—
  Buxton Urban strict Council Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Pills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill.
London Government Scheme (South wark) Bill.
1226
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Monday next.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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 Order (Gas) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL,
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES) BILL,

    KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED),
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

CHARD GAS BILL, GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
CLEETHORPES IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDEK) (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
Read the third time, and passed.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendments to—
Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Bradford, in the West Riding of the County of York, to construct additional tramways,

1227
waterworks, and street improvements; to acquire certain gas undertakings, and to extend their limits of supply for gas; to purchase the rights and interests of the Shelf Tramways Company, Limited; and to make further provision for the health and good government of the city; and for other purposes." [Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords].

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Sunderland; Crewe; Festiniog; Leeds; and Norfolk; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Petitions for alteration: From Brentford; Paignton; Festiniog; Wimbledon; Tyldesley with Shakerley; Garton; and Hebden Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Longport; Sneyd Green; Stanfield; Middleport; Burslem (two); and Thornhill Lees; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON WATER BILL.
Petitions in favour of the direct representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs upon the proposed Water Board: From St. Pancras and Greenwich; to lie upon the Table.
PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Bradford and York; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Edinburgh, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Poole; Exmouth; London; and Wareham; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAYAS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Great Northern and Strand Railway Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Navy Boilers.
  COLONELDENNY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it has yet been decided which type of boiler is for the future to be fitted to ships of war in this country.
  (Answer.) A decision on the general principle has been arrived at, and I shall be happy to give the hon. Member the full details if he will repeat his Question in a few days.—(Admiralty.)

  West Africa—Native Labourers from Liberia.
  Mr. W. F. LAWRENCE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Republic of Liberia has by law farmed out to an individual of German nationality the monopoly of supplying Kroo labourers for working outside the boundaries of the republic, and that the attention of the Foreign Office was called in May, 1899, by the West African Trade Association, and again in April, 1901, by West African. merchants, to the tax thereby imposed on British trade and to the hindrances to the trade of our adjacent colonies resulting therefrom; whether any action was taken by His Majesty's Government in consequence of such representations; whether there is a British consul resident in Liberia; and, if not, whether the Foreign Office will consider the advisability at an early date of arranging for proper consular representation there; and whether the Government has made any inquiries of the Governor of Sierra Leone in order to ascertain his views as to the above-named system, its result, and remedies; and can he state how long this monopoly is likely to last.

  1229
  (Answer.) On the 5th May, 1899, the West African Trade Association drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the concession which had been granted to a German firm of the sole right to supply Kroo boys from Liberia for employment outside the limits of the republic. The Foreign Office was, however, already aware of its having been granted, and had for some time past been in communication in regard to it with the Governor of Sierra Leone, who at that time acted as His Majesty's consul in Liberia. As a result of these communications, the Governor visited Monrovia and entered into negotiations on the subject with the Liberian Government. On the 27th March, 1901, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, who had been informed of the opening of these negotiations, wrote to ask if they had had any result. In the meantime a draft of regulations for the engagement of Kroo labourers, which the Governor had prepared for submission to the Liberian Government, had been communicated to Messrs. Elder, Dempster, but they had replied that the scheme appeared unworkable. These and other criticisms were sent out to the Governor of Sierra Leone for his observations, and on receipt of his reply it was decided that the matter could be most conveniently dealt with at a conference of the various responsible authorities and those interested in the question. As the Governor is shortly returning homo on leave, it is hoped that an early opportunity may be found for holding such a conference. There has hitherto been no British consul resident in Liberia, the duties of consul there having been discharged by the Governor of Sierra Leone. It has now, however, been settled that these duties shall be undertaken for the future by the British consul for French Western Africa, who resides at Dakar. It is believed that this arrangement will be more convenient than that hitherto in force, and will satisfy all the requirements of British trade; but the question of the appointment of a resident British vice consul at Monrovia is also under consideration. The concession of the German firm expires early next year.—(Foreign Office.)

  Hanworth Temporary Smallpox Hospital.
  Sir F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he
  1230
  is aware that a smallpox hospital is being erected at Han worth, Middlesex, on land the surface water from which drains into the Thames at Hampton immediately above the intakes of the South wark and Vauxhall Water Company, the Grand Junction Water Company, and the West Middlesex Water Company; whether he is aware that the site on which the building stands is at times under water from four to nine inches; and seeing that it is contrary to the regulations of the Local Government Board, issued August, 1900, to build on a site where 400 persons reside within a quarter of a mile of the building, over 1,000 within half a mile, and 3,000 just outside that radius, whether he will take any, and if so what, steps to prevent the danger to the neighbourhood and London they shadow forth.
  (Answer.) I am aware that a temporary smallpox hospital is being erected at Hanworth for the use of the urban districts of Hampton, Teddington, and Hampton Wick, and complaints have been made to me with regard to it. I can only require the observance of the regulations referred to in the third paragraph of the Question, in cases in which the cost of the hospital is to be defrayed out of borrowed money. In the present instance I understand this is not proposed, and I have therefore no authority to interfere. Having regard, however, to the allegations made, I have thought it desirable to instruct two of the officers of the Department to visit the site and report to me fully on the subject; and I have given instructions accordingly.—(Local Government Board.)

  South African War—Transport—The "Canada."
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the steamship "Canada," which was engaged by the Admiralty to take 500 Grenadiers, with other troops and passengers, to South Africa last month, was licensed by the Board of Trade to carry 1,060 passengers; whether he can explain why the troops and passengers on board amounted to nearly 2,000; and whether any increase of boats or lifebelts was made in consequence.
  (Answer.) The numbers of troops embarked (1,756 men), in the "Canada" on the occasion referred to were within

  1231
  her recognised accommodation as a transport, viz. 1,784. The Board of Trade licence has reference only to her fitted passenger accommodation in her ordinary trade, and does not affect the ship when her cargo space is fitted up for conveyance of troops; the Admiralty is responsible for the ship under the latter conditions. There was a lifebelt on board for every passenger, and the boats were increased as usual under the transport regulations.—(Admiralty.)

  Birching in the Army.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Joseph Kibby, of the Grenadier Guards, was in or about the month of March flogged; and whether he will state the offence this man had committed, and also the offences for which punishment by birching is allowable in the Army.
  (Answer.) The boy was birched by order of the commanding officer. The offence was disobedience of a regimental order, which forbade boys smoking, and absence without leave; for the latter offence he was liable to trial by general court-martial. Birching is not allowed in the Army, except in Army Schools under restrictions. The Commander in Chief disapproved of the commanding officer's action, and has taken the necessary disciplinary action.—(War Office.)

  Supply—Committee on the Examination of the Estimates.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when he proposes to appoint a Committee on the whole question of Supply; also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to leave the control of this House, as regards expenditure, in its present condition.
  (Answer.) These questions may perhaps be answered together. It is the intention of the Government to propose the appointment of a Committee to consider whether, in certain respects, the machinery at present available for the examination and criticism of Estimates might not be improved. The precise terms of reference will be placed upon the Table shortly.—(Treasury.)

  Education Bill.—Repairs to School Buildings.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the Educacation Bill, 1902, repairs, such as those known as tenants' repairs, to the interior of any school building not provided by the local authority will be chargeable to the maintenance account or to the managers of such school.
  (Answer.) This is a matter of such detail that it can only be adequately discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill.—(Treasury.)

  Education Bill—Control of Local Authority.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether under the Education Bill, 1902, an elementary school entirely maintained by an endowment and by the Government grants will be subject to the inspection and control of the local education authority.
  (Answer) The local education authority will be responsible for the secular education given in all public elementary schools in its area, and therefore will be entitled to inspect such schools.—(Treasury.)

OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I shall deal with it as briefly as possible, but it will be necessary for me to remind the House what its history has been. The Bill was introduced in the last Parliament at the request of the National Conference of Friendly Societies, in order that a Bill carried by myself in 1894 might be amended and extended. I believe the House thoroughly understands the object and purport of the Bill, which is to give assistance to those who have been thrifty, and to show that it is an advantage to become members of friendly societies, and that those who do so are not to be penalised by the poor law, or by decisions of any Board of Guardians,

1233
by reason of the fact that they themselves have made provision against sickness or accident. The Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, but never went farther than the First Reading stage. The General Election came soon after, and the Bill was taken up throughout the length and breadth of the country by members of friendly societies, and, these being non-political bodies, this non-political Bill secured almost universal support from hon. Members on both sides of politics. When the Bill was introduced again at the beginning of the new Parliament, it was treated absolutely as an unopposed Bill; in fact, every stage of it up to the Third Reading went through after midnight. And, what was still more important and significant, as showing that the Government recognised the value of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board gave it his blessing and used every endeavour to get it sent up to the House of Lords. If it had not been for the action of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill would never have been sent last session to the Upper House. I have every reason to believe that the President of the Local Government Board is prepared to support the Bill again in the same way, and to give it every facility, as far as he is concerned, so that it may once more be sent to the Upper Chamber. Of course, I recognise this fact. Last session the Bill was an unopposed Bill. This session, although it has been so fortunate as to get a good place on a private Members' day, it is no longer unopposed, for there has lately appeared on the Notice Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans, a Motion for its rejection. I do not know on what ground the hon. Member is taking that step, but I cannot help thinking the probability is he comes here as the spokesman of the Charity Organisation Society. If he is not he will, no doubt, tell us what other ground he has for his action. As far as I can make out, the only objection from any organised body of opinion in this country comes from the Charity Organisation Society. On the other hand, I rather expect the hon. Gentleman will not make much more than a sham fight; those who are
1234
opposed to the Bill are in a miserable minority in this House, and therefore I quite expect he will run away from the division and let the Bill get a Second Reading unopposed.
I will now deal with the objections raised in the House of Lords to this Bill. It is rather curious that even in the House of Lords the Bill went through all its stages without opposition until, on the Third Reading,† opposition was developed on be half of an independent Peer—the Earl of Northbrook; and I believe that the noble Lord who successfully moved its rejection was influenced by the action taken by the Charity Organisation Society. What were the reasons adduced on that occasion against this Bill I It was said that it was not in the real interests of friendly societies that the Bill should become law, and a suggestion was thrown out that some further expression of opinion by those organisations was desirable. One would have thought that a great body like the National Conference of Friendly Societies, which had again and again affirmed its approval of the Bill, would have known whether it was in the true interests of their societies that the Bill should pass into law. The Conference represents over 3,750,000 of members of friendly societies, and I think it sufficiently answered the noble Lord on that point, for at the meeting which was held so recently as the 20th March last a resolution was carried expressing strong disapproval of the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Bill after its acceptance by the House of Commons, and placing on record the determination not to be satisfied until the measure has become the law of the land. Surely that sufficiently disposes of the argument of the noble Earl that the friendly societies have not sufficiently declared their opinion. The noble Earl has got the result of their further consideration, and he now knows that they are determined not to allow the House of Lords to stand in the way of the Bill, as to the value of which they have absolutely made up their minds. Another objection raised by the noble Lord was that so important a change ought not to be made in the poor law by a private
† See (4) Debates xcvii. 5.
Member, but that it should be done at the instance of the Government. If the noble Earl had not left this House so long ago he would have known that in these days it is practically impossible for a Government to take up a matter of this sort because they have such an enormous amount of contentious business to deal with. They are therefore glad, in the case of questions of an uncontentious character—like this Bill—to avail themselves of the services of a private Member; indeed, it is not infrequently the case that they have inspired private Members to bring in Bills of a non-political and non-contentious character, and in the end given the measure the Government blessing. I do not mean, however, to suggest that there was any such inspiration in this case, but they have supported and heartily approved it. I have heard it said that the Government did not approve of this Bill in the House of Lords, but we must judge of their opinions by the way they voted, and I would point out that every Cabinet Minister present in the House of Lords when the division was taken voted for the Bill. It may be said that the Prime Minister walked out when the division was called, but that may have been merely an accident. I do not think there was one Cabinet Minister who opposed this Bill. Again, the noble Earl complained that the Bill had never been discussed in the House of Commons. To that I reply that he left this Chamber so long ago that he cannot be aware that the mere fact of a Bill not being discussed, and being accepted and supported as non-contentious by the representatives of the people, is considered as an indication that the Bill has the country at its back.
I cannot help thinking that what influenced the House of Lords was the speech made by Lord Wemyss, when he said it would be much better to repeal the Act of 1894, which was permissive, and to deprive the guardians of the small amount of discretion they now have—a discretion which the Bill now before the House proposes to limit to a certain extent. The noble Lord asked—Why limit the discretion at all? We propose it for the reason that there has been no uniform procedure in this matter. While the
1236
great majority of the Board of Guardians have carried out the Act in a broad and liberal spirit, other Boards of Guardians have not done so, and would do nothing more than relieve absolute destitution. These are the Boards of Guardians which are backed up and encouraged by the Charity Organisation Society. We have not to legislate for people who are good citizens and try to carry out their obligations in every way, but we have to legislate for people who are reactionary, and who consider that the only ground on which a man should be granted relief is that he would starve if it were refused. Surely there ought be a difference made between the thrifty and the unthrifty, and between the drunken and dissolute man and he who has been a sober citizen all his life. It has been said that Boards of Guardians object to this Bill. Well, in order to test their feelings, a circular was sent out by a Somersetshire Board of Guardians in September last year, asking for their views in regard to it. The circular was forwarded to 650 unions, 236 replied, 98 in favour of the Bill and only 36 against, while 86 were neutral. In the case of 16 Boards the discussion on the Bill had been adjourned. What does that show? It shows that even Boards of Guardians, who certainly are people who might be supposed to take an objection to the Bill, inasmuch as it limits their discretion, are by no means opposed to it. Ninety-eight, in fact, are in favour of having their discretion limited, and only 36 oppose it. It further shows that the great majority of the Boards of Guardians were of opinion that it did not matter, as, at the present time, they were doing exactly what the Bill said they ought to do. Of the 36 which were opposed, 7 were in London, and I should like to point out that among the Boards in agricultural districts in favour of the Bill 33 counties, including Yorkshire, were represented. As far as the Boards of Guardians which did not trouble to reply to the circular are concerned, it may be taken that, generally speaking, they are not hostile to the Bill, while of those which have taken the trouble to express their views upon it, the great majority are in favour of it. I notice that the South Eastern Poor Law Conference, which is practically

1237
run by the Charity Organisation Society, held a meeting last December which was attended by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who, in referring to this Bill, described it as "the conversion into a compulsory measure of an optional measure passed at the instance of Sir Edward Strachey a few years ago." The Registrar also said that he was not consulted at the time, or he would have raised objections to it. He, like Lord Wemyss, evidently thinks that we ought not to give permissive powers to Boards of Guardians to make any difference between members and non-members of friendly societies. It may be that the Registrar does not wish to glorify the friendly societies, and does not think we ought to do anything to make it more easy for such societies to get members. Still, it shows that, in his own mind, not only is he opposed to the Bill itself, but he is entirely opposed to the idea that there should be any legislation in this matter. He also called this Bill a modified system of giving old age pensions. As to that he is clearly under a misapprehension. The Bill has nothing whatever to do with old age pensions, and if hon. Members will only take the trouble to look at it they will see that the discretionary power which is limited by the Bill only comes into operation when sick pay money is given in cases of either accident or sickness. Those words were introduced to avoid the mixing up of the question of sick relief with that of old age pensions.
The Central Poor Law Conference, which last March also had this Bill under consideration, condemned it. One of the speakers read a paper on this question—Dr. Wright, of the Grimsby union—voicing the opinion of the Central Poor Law Conference, and he said that the contention of the Charity Organisation Society was that poor law relief should be institutional, and that charities should supply all other relief that might be necessary and inevitable. That is exactly the attitude taken up by the Poor Law Conference and by hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Bill on their behalf, by other societies outside, and by the House of Lords. Their view is that there should be a hard and fast line, that a man must be in actual danger of starvation before he gets poor law relief. He is only to be allowed it in order to keep
1238
him from starvation. This Bill rather encourages, they say, outdoor relief. The Charity Organisation Society wishes to draw working men and women into the workhouses, and therefore advocates the refusal of outdoor relief altogether. There are certain unions in the country which act on that view, and which hold that such cases as would come within the powers dealt with in this Bill ought to look to private charity. That is the real reason why the Charity Organisation Society objects to this Bill. They say it encourages the idea that outdoor relief ought to be given to thrifty and industrious people, and not merely on a small scale, but on a larger scale than usual in order to make their lines more pleasant than those of men and women who have never done anything to put away money for a rainy day or to ensure themselves against sickness and accident. The objection to this Bill is thus confined within a very narrow area. I ask the House to read it a second time and thus to re-affirm the principle which it affirmed on a previous occasion, that there ought to be a decided distinction drawn in our poor law administration between the thrifty and the unthrifty, between the man who has done his best to keep off the rates, and he who has done nothing; between the man who has made sacrifices in order to gain and continue his membership of a friendly society, and the man who has done nothing of the kind, so that the former may have better treatment if the necessity should unfortunately arise for him to have recourse to the poor law. I venture to suggest that the refusal of such distinctive treatment is calculated to induce the man who has never joined a friendly society and never made any sacrifice, but who has been contented to lead a happy-go-lucky life, to say to himself, "Why should I trouble? when the end comes I shall not be any better off; if sickness ensues I shall have to obtain sick relief in any case, and then I shall get just as good treatment as the man who, by self denial, has kept his membership of a friendly society for many years."
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
MR. VICARY GIBBS: There is only one remark in the speech to which we have just listened to which I take exception. The hon. Baronet said he believed I was the spokesman of an outside society. I consider that a suggestion of that sort is very objectionable. I object to this Bill, and offer opposition to it as an independent Member of this House, regarding my position as a trust, and believing that the Bill will not be for the advantage of the country if passed. I object altogether to being represented as the henchman of any society with which I have no connection. The hon. Member was also good enough to say that I belong to a miserable minority. I would venture to suggest to him that if he had used the word "small" it would have been less invidious and offensive, and a, more apt description of the body to which I belong. I know perfectly well that I am engaged in an unpopular task—unpopular in this House, judging from the fact that the Bill has passed without opposition in a previous year; and certainly unpopular in the country, where large and highly organised bodies are in favour of the measure. Nothing is easier than to obtain popularity in this country by advocating the claims of individuals or of organised bodies to money out of the public fluids. At the same time, there is nothing of which hon. Members ought to be more shy. I consider there is a serious danger of this House and of the Governments of this country meeting organised demands, and neglecting demands equally just because they are not organised.
I hope the House will credit me with entertaining a strong conviction as to the way in which the poor law ought to be administered. The hon. Member and those who support him desire to remedy an injustice. That injustice, if it be an injustice, or so far as it is one, is the different way in which the wastrel man who has saved no money is treated as compared with the man who has been in a friendly society. But that difference can already be cured by the action of Boards of Guardians, under the hon. Member's Bill of 1894, and he has advanced no evidence whatever that the Guardians have abused that power.
1240
The Guardians have an opportunity of judging each case on its merits, and of considering whether in any particular case they should, or should not, ignore the fact that the applicant is in receipt of 5s. a week sick pay from his friendly society. These are eminently cases for individual treatment, and not for being treated en bloc. Again, the hon. Member says he desires uniformity. But how is he going to get it? Need the Bill in particular cases be operative at all? Even if it is passed there will still remain with the Guardians absolute discretion as to the amount of poor relief which they will give, and they will be under no obligation to give a reason for any decision they may come to. They still might offer the member of a friendly society the workhouse or nothing at all. One Board may act in the spirit which the hon. Member desires, and give the member of a friendly society more than is necessary to keep him from destitution, while another Board, which regards the disposition of public funds by claims on the rates as a trust, may do the direct contrary, and may, indeed, put the member of a friendly society in a worse position than he is already in. Then, the hon. Member says he desires to encourage thrift. Will he do that by making the very mistake which was denounced by the important Commission of 1874—a Commission of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member—a Commission which said it was a mistake to encourage men to join clubs on the inducement that if they became paupers they would receive more favourable treatment?
The hon. Member desires justice as well as thrift. These are very fine things, which we all desire. But the question is—How are they to be obtained? Will it advance thrift, or will it advance justice, to remove from the men any inducement to obtain from friendly societies sick pay of more than 5s. a week? Will it be just to give a money bonus to insufficient thrift? The criticisms offered on this Bill on the 19th June last year, have evidently had no effect whatever on the framers of the measure. They have remained unanswered, and they are unanswerable. Is it just to pick out one form of thrift

1241
for reward, and to neglect other equally meritorious forms? What was said last year about the Army pensioner? Is not his money earned by service at least as meritorious to the State as that of men who subscribe to friendly societies? What about the man who pays into a building society, or, indeed, the member of a friendly society who gets superannuation pay so-called? We are told he is not to have the advantages of this Bill because he is not in receipt of "sick pay." I suppose the hon. Member will say that these people all ought to have it. Yes, so they ought, if members of friendly societies have it, but, of course they must organise and agitate; they must make their voices heard in the constituencies, and they must make hon. Members understand that they will lose their election if they do not vote for it. Then they will get it in a moment. There is not much abstract justice about that. How about the poor women who do not organise, who do not belong to friendly societies, and yet may be as thrifty as any man? They are left entirely out by this Bill. How about the thrifty man who happens not to have been able to get a medical certificate in his youth; he is left clean out of it. Support of this measure is extremely popular on the platform, and it will be an admirable thing if I have an opponent at the next election who will come down and say, "Your Member spoke against the Friendly Societies Bill," no doubt it will lose mo a lot of votes. But that is not what ought to influence us in this matter.
I feel very strongly that this Bill does not remove injustice—accepting the hon. Member's own view, it simply shifts the point at which the injustice begins. More than that, it creates a great many new inequalities. The Bill is popular, and yet it is going to give a preference to the healthy over the sickly. It is a Bill to give rate aid to healthy people. Grant it is just to allow friendly societies to obtain subscriptions by holding out to members the prospect I 'of becoming privileged paupers, this premium should only be given to sound societies because the effect of unsound societies, is to discourage thrift. What does that mean? It means State
1242
supervision and inspection. Is that what the friendly societies desire? No, and yet it is the obvious corollary of this demand. If you are to give State aid there should be State inspection and control. No one thinks more highly of friendly societies than I do, I feel the same admiration as the hon. Member does for Mr. Bray broke—the man who is perhaps one of the greatest supporters of friendly societies, and has done more for them than any one in this country. But in this matter he agrees with me. We admire friendly societies because their motto has been Co-operative independence, and because they have benefited the country so much by saving rates. I feel gratitude to them for doing it. I recognise the benefit that they have conferred on the country by lessening pauperism, and I am distressed, and regret that for the first time in their magnificent record they should come forward to support a Bill which will have the inevitable tendency of increasing outdoor relief, and the expenditure from the rates in this country. At this moment there is no more than one member in 6,000 members of friendly societies who comes on the poor law for relief; therefore they have not a very large interest in this matter at the moment, but if they are to obtain a large interest through this Bill it must be because they are going to hold out poor law relief as an added State bonus to the subscriptions of their members. They certainly will not in that way serve the cause of thrift. A man will say, "If, after all, I am to get into the hands of the guardians, and to become a pauper in order to increase what I have got from my society, I may as well begin where it is suggested I should end, and take no trouble to save at all but go straight to the guardians, who will thus become the best benefit club in the country." The Bill will make for outdoor relief, it will discourage thrift; it will do real injury to friendly societies, for the more you set poor law relief in competition with them the more you cripple and weaken them. This Bill undoubtedly confers a direct premium on members of the friendly societies, and I am convinced that it will in the end tend to the levelling up of outdoor relief all round. By it you tell the

1243
guardians they are not to count the 5s. weekly an applicant has got, and the tendency of that will be to make that sum the minimum of outdoor relief. It might be a real benefit to friendly societies if the guardians were instructed not to give outdoor relief where there was no evidence of thrift. What is the meaning of the phrase "sick pay" as used in this Bill? Does it mean that the society, which divides sick pay from superannuation pay—which is an excellent thing for any society to do—are to be at an absolute disadvantage as compared with one which muddles the two together? If so, it seems to me most unreasonable. The hon. Member said the guardians were in favour of this Bill last September.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I said the circular was sent out to them last September. Some of the answers have only just been received.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I assert that they are not in favour of it now, at any rate, for during this present Spring the Central Poor Law Conference, which was attended by 202 representative guardians, by an enormous majority expressed disapproval of the Bill. The S. E. Conference took the same course, and so have a number of individual Boards of Guardians. My objection to this Bill is really not the details but to the principle. I object to our light-heartedly and by piece - meal abandoning the principle that the Boor Law Fund consists solely for the relief of destitution and should carry with it, as it now does, electoral disability and the brand of pauperism; guardians have no charitable funds which they can distribute to meritorious people, and I object to that fund—which has hitherto been used solely for the purpose of keeping from starvation men who largely are the most shiftless and most worthless Members of the community—I object to that fund being dipped into to provide good conduct prizes for people who have observed one particular form of thrift. I say the inevitable principle of the Bill is to attack the whole principle on which our poor law is now based. I consider that so large a Bill as this in its effects, yet so
1244
small a one in its size, should be introduced by a member of the Government; and if we so deliberately introduce the Socialist principle into a poor law let it be after the most careful deliberations by the House, and not in this free and easy and light-hearted manner. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I rise to second the Amendment of my hon. friend. In doing so one is, of course, confronted with the popular character which this Bill presents at first sight, in view of the fact that its proposal is that Boards of Guardians shall be compelled to assist that form of thrift which is represented by subscription to benefit societies. That on the face of it everybody will say is an excellent thing and ought to be supported. That was the feeling which I should think animated Parliament last year and prevented the House considering the Bill, until on further reflection it was perceived that much larger questions were raised by these proposals than those which concerned this particular grant of an addition to sick pay. This Bill attacks fundamentally for the first time all the traditions of the poor law. I am very much surprised to find the President of the Local General Board, with all those traditions behind him, should be in favour of the Bill. How it happened I cannot say. But we must assume that both the right hon. Gentleman and his professional advisers are in favour of all their traditions and principles being cast to the winds. My hon. friend has mentioned how this Bill only favours one particular form of property. But it is quite clear if you do that you cannot stand still. Why, because a man has 5s. weekly from his benefit society, should you say, "I am not to regard that; you are absolutely destitute. I shut my eyes to what you are receiving, and here is another 5s. for you." If you do that, how are you going to deal with the next case which comes before you of a man who has some property not derived from a benefit society who finds it necessary to apply for poor law relief because of the insufficiency of his property He will say in answer to the usual question that he has tome property. Are

1245
you going to say in reply, "Then you are not destitute and have no claim." Surely that would be a very hard position to take up. At the present time, through the discretion which Boards of Guardians exercise—not always legally, but still generally, acting on sound common-sense principles—they do deal with both these cases on their merits. But under the proposals of this Bill the question of merit is to disappear; in some cases you are to be bound to give relief, and in others you are to refuse it, and you thus will create most grievous and gross inequalities. That being so, it is clear we cannot stop here, we must go on and legalise the guardians, disregarding the possession of property in every case. Destitution is no longer to be the qualification for poor law relief. When we have done that we shall have jumped into the position which we took up more than a century ago, when a wave of sentimentalism, very much like that which is now passing over the country, led to the grant of outdoor relief on a most lavish scale. What was the result? It was absolute ruin, both to the poor and to the ratepayers, and in the course of thirty-four years great abuses and much misery were created by this lavish distribution of outdoor relief to privileged paupers. If a man was a householder with a large family, or his wages were insufficient, he was enabled to get a certain amount of relief. You are opening the door to exactly the same kind of thing now. The grievance became so great that by 1834 the country had come to recognise the magnitude of the evil and at a cost of immense unpopularity swept the whole system away and established the new system which has on the whole worked so beneficially by reducing pauperism and increasing the tendency to thrift. The House is now asked to go back to the old system. This is the first step—a little one perhaps, but it is a first step which may lead to disastrous results. You must, if you take it, go on step by step from one class of property to another, until you open the door to out door relief in all that extravagance which characterised it at the beginning of the last century, but which was happily cured in 1834. These are my reasons
1246
broadly for rejecting the Bill. It is not in consequence of any hostility to friendly societies—for I am myself a Member for more than one, and I believe I have the proud honour of being an old age pensioner. I desire in every way to foster the interests of friendly societies, I believe, with Mr. Bray broke, that this Bill will prove injurious to them, that it will lower their status and put their Members in the position of privileged paupers, with the ultimate result that they will lose the great and independent position they now occupy.
Amendment proposed.
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of of the Question."
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I think I may, in the first instance, say that the speeches which have been delivered against the Second Reading of this Bill deserve the serious consideration of the House, for it is well that hon. Members, when considering a Bill of this nature, should have before them all the different views held in regard to it. The last speaker referred to the fact that this measure had the support of the President of the Local Government Board, but I would like to remind him that the Act which this Bill seeks to amend was passed by the Parliament of 1894, after considerable deliberation, and after the Local Government Board had carefully considered all the pros and cons in relation to it. That Act was more or less forced on Parliament by the action taken by Boards of Guardians, their common practice at that time being to go away from the principle which has been so well and properly advocated by the hon. Baronet. The old doctrine was that destitution was the only thing to be considered in granting poor law relief. That doctrine was forced upon the mind of the country by the unparalleled abuse of the poor law that prevailed previous to the Act of 1831. Anybody who reads the evidence given before the Commission of 1834 must be astounded at the laxity that existed

1247
under the poor law at that time. It brought about a very strong reaction, and gave birth to the principle, that destitution was the only thing to be considered. Within the last fifteen or twenty years that principle has greatly weakened, not only in practice but by the growth of a more humane standard of poor law administration. It is felt that the hard and fast lines absolutely necessary to be enforced in the earlier part of the century are no longer necessary under the altered conditions under which we live at the present time, and for years past the feeling has been growing up, and I think, rightly growing up, in the poor law administration of this country, that in the administration of the poor laws other factors besides absolute destitution must be taken into consideration, and that the aim should be to inculcate habits of thrift among the more self-respecting poor. What could be more shocking, for instance, than a case that occurred some time ago under this rigid administration of the poor law. A man with a little home filled with little chattels, gathered together with great pain, in consequence of sickness had to apply for poor law relief and had to go into the workhouse, with the result that his home was broken up never to be replaced. Case after case occurred in that way, and homes were broken up which could never again be restored, when by a little temporary assistance they might have been preserved. That was a harsh administration which I am glad to say has been gradually giving way to that more humane interpretation of the law which is making for the welfare of the poorer classes of this country.
The Act of 1894 recognised that that spirit had been going on for a long time, and recognised that the poor law guardians were constantly in the habit of saying: "This man is receiving sick pay amounting to 2s. 6d. a, week from a friendly society, and, though we will give him relief, as he is receiving sick pay we will take care to give him 2s. 6d. less than we otherwise should." In some cases it was only 1s. 3d. that was deducted under such circumstances, but that became the system of many of the unions in the country, and the
1248
result was that until the law of 1894 was passed the poor law guardians were disobeying the law and the orders of the Local Government Board. But in some of the unions the old strict law was followed out, and a man was told he could not receive any relief because he was in receipt of sick pay, though as I have said in other cases he got something. The Act of 1894 gave a sanction to friendly societies, because it gave poor law guardians authority to act on their own discretion with regard to these matters. The result of that has not been satisfactory. It is the general practice of friendly societies, and is generally thought throughout the country only an act of justice, that those who have been thrifty and have desired to save a little should be relieved in time of stress, and it is not to the interests of good administration generally that there should be a sense of injustice in the minds of the best section of the poorer classes, the members of the friendly societies. There is still a diversity of practice which does not tend to create that feeling of satisfaction, and take away this sense of injustice from members of friendly societies. The Bill before the House proposes to do away with that, because it proposes to give the poor law guardians a certain power to recognise such pay to the extent of 5s. a week, and not to take that into consideration in granting poor law relief, and that practice will become compulsory among all poor law guardians. Of course, it is said that if you make this recognition in the case of friendly societies, you should recognise all kinds of thrift. I admit that that is so, but it is a poor reason for opposing the Bill that it does not recognise all kinds of thrift. I should like to see every form of thrift brought before the guardians and recognised up to 5s. a week, so that it might not be taken into consideration in granting relief, because we want to encourage thrift. But this Bill will, at all events, bring about a more uniform practice and will remove from the minds of a large section, and the best section, of the poorer community that sense of injustice which now prevails.
SIR SAMUEL HOARE: Although I am a warm supporter of this Bill, I do not regret that some of my hon. friends have suggested its rejection, because that enables us to hear from them all the objections that can be raised against it. They have treated this measure as if it were a new departure, whereas the law of 1894 has settled the principle, and this is no very important change. That Act was discretionary, and being discretionary, it has led to some difficulties, and it was thought that when this Bill was introduced last year it would solve those difficulties and would remove any uncertainty that might exist in the minds of the poor law guardians. Last year this Bill was passed unanimously by this House, and although it was thrown out in another place I was certainly under the impression and am still that the majority of this House was certainly in favour of the Bill, and I shall be extremely surprised if it is not carried by a large majority. I am, however, quite ready to own that many of the points brought before the House by those who oppose the Bill are worthy of consideration, and if I differ from them it is not because I have been forced by my constituents or have taken this step with any idea of catching votes, but because I have served on two very important Committees of this House: The Friendly Societies Committee and the Old Age Pensions Committee. It is owing to the experience I have gained on those Committees that I am convinced that it is our duty to do all we can to further this great motive of thrift which has grown up among our working class population.
Now I will at once answer the question which has been put by my two hon. friends—Is it just to pick out one form of thrift? I would remind the House that this is not the only form of thrift that this House has said shall be picked out for special consideration. In the case of those who are rich enough to insure their lives, they are by an Act of this House exempted from the payment of income tax on that money which they devote to the premiums on their life insurance. This House has marked out life and property insurances for special consideration; they are exempted from all payments of income tax. It has, therefore, shown that while
1250
it acknowledges there are many useful and desirable ways of thrift, there is no kind of thrift so certain in its effect as that which the richer classes can avail themselves of in making provision for death. Equally important is it in the case of the working classes in regard to illness. I see no reason why the House should hesitate to pass the Second Reading of this Bill because other means of thrift ought to be taken into consideration. I wish it were possible to take thrift in other channels more into consideration. In the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions on which I sat, it is suggested that thrift of various kinds should be considered equally with membership of a friendly society. My hon. friend here may well be proud of being one of the old age pensioners in a friendly society, and I know he has a high opinion of the society as a means of thrift. But I would remind him that, according to his own evidence before that Committee, that society does not meet the point which the societies we are now discussing do meet, because, although that was a society in which deposits were made and the money accumulated so that at a certain time on old age pension could be secured, many of the Members withdrew their money for different purposes. They might sometime withdraw it for very improvident reasons, with the result that when sickness came they would be without those benefits which are assured to members of friendly societies, because the latter are unable to withdraw their subscriptions. The friendly societies, I think, therefore, do work which of all kinds of thrift is the most useful to the working people of this country,
I understand that my hon. friend the Member for St. Albans is afraid that this Bill will encourage members of friendly societies to be content with smaller subscriptions, believing that by providing 5s. a week they will be doing all that is necessary. My experience of members of friendly societies does not at all lead me to confirm that opinion. I take a totally opposite view. The great motive of all who join friendly societies is that they should be absolutely independent of all poor law relief. For that reason we find members who join; more than one society in order to have absolutely safe benefits on which to rely in any emergency.

1251
My hon. friend asks—Why are women exempted? I am glad that in many of our friendly societies there are flourishing branches for women, but I. do not think we should go far to encourage women joining in those numbers which we should like to see if, by being reactionary on the present occasion, we led them to understand that this House does not give them that full and warm support to which they are entitled.
What are the friendly societies really doing for the country? Have they a claim upon us? If so, what is that claim? There are over 5,000,000 members of friendly societies, almost entirely from the working classes, who have saved nearly £35,000,000. According to the last returns, I have been able to see the receipts of the societies come to no less than £6,700,000; the amount paid for sickness and medical help amounted to £4,736,000, and other payments to £700,000, or over £5,000,000 altogether. It must strike the House that by that £5,000,000 being forthcoming in time of difficulty and sickness there must have been an enormous saving to the ratepayers throughout the country. It is difficult to say what that saving would be. Then to that must be added the vast number of cases where by thrift and this determination to avoid going on the rates the working classes have been able to meet out of their own resources cases of extreme illness or epidemics. I think, therefore, that these 5,000,000 people have a claim upon us when they ask, not for fresh legislation, but that the legislation passed in 1894 should be made more definite in its actions.
We are told that a great number of Boards of Guardians are against the Bill. My experience has been somewhat different. There may be some who look upon it with a certain amount of fear and anxiety, but I have no anxiety whatever as to its working. There is no greater work that we can do in this House than that of showing those who are trying to help themselves that we wish, even by legislation, to encourage their thrift. I would not describe this Bill as one offering good conduct prizes. If a man endeavours to provide for himself and his family, it may be by subscribing to a friendly society for the greater part of his life, I think he has a right—and we are justified in acceding to that right—to some little assistance
1252
from the ratepayers rather than be obliged to go into the workhouse. I hope the House will repeat their former decision on this Bill. By so doing I do not believe they will make more paupers. On the contrary, it will be an encouragement to people to make greater efforts to provide for themselves, and so reduce pauperism. I very heartily support the Second Rseading of the Bill.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I desire to take part in this debate simply because I happened, while at the Local Government Board, to preside over a Select Committee which considered the whole question of poor law relief and poor law reform. This Bill was in existence then, and more than once by direction of the Local Government Board I opposed it. The Bill has not changed to my knowledge, and I hold the same views now as then. The Act of 1894 was passed with a view to giving poor law guardians absolute discretion in dealing with this question of outdoor relief. It was a great change in the previous law. That absolute discretion having been given, why should friends of local government seek to give a direction which fetters that discretionary power? Hon. Members must face the issue of whether they are in favour of or against local government. If they are in favour of local government institutions let them say so; if they are in favour of a central power being exercised to guide the discretion of the local bodies let them say that; we should then know where we are.
I object to this Bill because I object to any niggling with the question of poor law reform, which is rotten-ripe for settlement. The Committee which sat two or three years ago came to a perfectly clear decision on the matter, and, what is more, the Report of that Committee was generally approved. If outdoor relief is given, it ought to be adequate. I hold that this House ought not to approach the poor law question without taking the whole facts into consideration. I believe that the poor law system is a harsh and oppressive system, and I believe it is perfectly possible to make it a cheaper system than it is at present, and yet give adequate relief to everybody who ought to get it. But this is not the question which we are discussing to-day.

1253
If this were a question of extending outdoor relief and abolishing workhouses I should support it, but this is not a proposal to remodel the whole system, and make the workhouses practically infirmaries as they ought to be. That would be an entirely different thing to what is proposed in this Bill. I object to this measure because it ties the hands of the guardians and limits the discretion which Parliament has placed in their hands, and because it sets up differential treatment between the different classes of the people. For five years I had charge of the Poor Law Department, and I presided upstairs over one of the best Committees which ever sat upon this subject, and which arrived at a perfectly clear decision, which I believe the Government approved of. I understood at the time that the money could not be spared because it was required for other purposes. I object to treating the question of poor law reform in this piecemeal fashion, and I object to giving preferential treatment to any class of the community. Upon a question of this sort, the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland, ought to stand upon the same footing, and no man should stand superior before poor law guardians than any other man. I oppose this Bill because it ties the hands of the guardians, and because it ties their hands where they ought to be free. Poor law guardians know the facts of the cases and they have the people before them, and this Bill will set up a preferential set of applicants, which, instead of promoting poor law reform will prove to be an inducement to people to become paupers who ought never to have sought poor law relief at all. I believe it is a bad Bill, and for that reason probably it will be read a second time. Under these circumstances I am all the more determined to oppose it.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I desire to say a few words from the point of view of a London Member. I think I am justified in doing so, seeing that we had a Report which was only published this morning, which shows that pauperism, while being on the increase both in England and Wales, is proportionally greater in London than outside the Metropolitan area. Attention has been
1254
drawn to the fact that over 4,000,000 of the most thrifty of the working classes of this country are distinctly in favour of this measure. Would it be possible to introduce a measure of this nature which would have such a thorough backing as this Bill. We find that these 4,000,000 of the working classes have already contributed practically towards their own support a sum equal to about £35,000,000. It has been urged that, because in another place this Bill has been thrown out, that ought to have some effect in biassing our judgment. Many of us are elected by the people and some of us come from the people, and therefore we are better able to deal with this question than those I who sit in another place. We are told that the duty of Boards of Guardians is to relieve destitution, and that by this measure we should be interfering to some extent with their discretion. If we interfere with their discretion, it is only in a very limited degree, and only as it were in the form of guidance and an attempt to bring those Boards which are, if I may so speak, below the level as regards humanitarian instincts into line with the better Boards of Guardians throughout the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] But it is well known that in certain districts there are Boards of Guardians who are dead against outdoor relief and who endeavour to force everybody into the workhouse. I say that that is a bad principle, to which I am entirely opposed. It is a well-known fact that when workhouses were established in Ireland Daniel O'Connell predicted that they would be the ruin of the country, because he said they would encourage immorality and everything else in the shape of crime which exists in Ireland. Surely it is desirable that we should do everything in our power to encourage thrift in every shape and form, seeing that of all countries this country stands lowest in the matter of thrift, although it is first in the matter of wealth. The arguments brought forward by the hon. Member who opposed this Bill were arguments for a complete reform of the poor law system generally. We are not opposed to that: we are thoroughly in favour of it; but that is no reason why we should not endeavour to get half a loaf because we cannot get a whole one.
The question of vote-catching has been alluded to. In my own case I have no vote-catching in view, because the

1255
majority of my constituents happen to belong to the higher class of labour, and they belong mostly to the powerful friendly societies, and they rarely come upon the rates. But as to the question of this pressure, is it not right and proper that pressure should be put upon them in a question of this kind, where it is for the benefit of the country and all clasees who pay rates equally that the rates of the country should be, as they would be under this proposal, reduced? The members of the various friendly societies have been referred to as privileged paupers. It has been shown by the hon. Member for Norwich, who, in his excellent speech, has spoken with a knowledge of this subject which few of us possess, that there is only one in 6,000 of this particular class of people who ever come upon the rates. It is said that we ought not to differentiate between class and class, and that all are equally entitled to relief. We know that that is the basis of our poor law system, which dates back to the time of Queen Elizabeth. There have been many changes which have taken place, so far as the poor law system goes, since that time. We are told that Boards of Guardians do not approve of this proposal, but no body of men who have power of any kind like to see that power limited. The question of one particular form of thrift was very ably dealt with by the hon. Member for Norwich, and I frankly admit that every man who by thrift in any way provides for himself has an equal claim upon the community. I know that in the mining districts in the North of England men often purchase a house by paying some small sum of money as rent. I quite agree that these men should share equally with those who happen to belong to benefit societies; but, on the other hand, these men could, if they chose, have placed their money in friendly societies, and it would have been better had they done so. If that is the objection to the Bill raised by the right hon. Member who has opposed this measure, why did he not propose an Amendment in that direction? The hon. Member seems to be opposed to the Bill as a whole, and to any change whatever in connection with the poor law, whereas we are for humanising the poor law system as far as we possibly can
1256
under the existing law. I hope my hon. friend will divide the House on this matter in order that we may see what amount of support we have in the House of Commons upon the question of further humanising the poor law. The objection which has been raised by the hon. Member opposite can be met by moving an Amendment in Committee making the Bill more comprehensive. The fact that the House recognised the arguments which we put forward on a former occasion, when this Bill went through practically all its stages, is a proof that the general sense of the House is with us upon this question. Those hon. Members who are opposed to friendly societies will no doubt oppose this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Who is opposed to them?] There are none who can conscientiously say in this House that they object to friendly societies who demand this Bill, and therefore those hon. Members who oppose it are opposed to friendly societies.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I am not unfriendly to the hon. Gentleman, but I disagree with him.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman is not unfriendly to mo, but I am sorry that I am not able to convince him. What is the tendency of the opposition to this Bill? Opposition to it is undoubtedly opposition to the independence and self-respect of the workers generally throughout the country, inasmuch as it is detrimental to those who have made the best provision they can, according to their position, for the future. They are placed, as it were, at a disadvantage, as compared with those who have made no provision at all. There can be no doubt, moreover, that the extension of this system will encourage friendly societies, and that will lead to a decrease of paupers. When we reflect that we have more than a million paupers in this country, and that there are more than a million always on the border line, and further when we reflect on what was brought before the House in connection with the city of York—and probably the state of things in other towns throughout the country is of a similar character—as to people who are living on the very verge of the pauper line, I think it is of the first importance that we should do everything

1257
we can to encourage friendly societies. My hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone objects to this Bill, mainly because it interferes with local government. I would ask the hon. Member whether, at the present moment, local government is absolutely free, or whether it is not controlled, and controlled in a marked manner, by a central Department. As to interfering with the Local Government Board, I cannot view the matter in the same light as the hon. Gentleman. He spoke of adequate relief being given: I would like to know how often adequate relief is given. Guardians, owing to their position, are almost bound to give a minimum of relief, and, on the whole, it will not be denied by this House that at the present moment rates all over the country are going up. I can certainly speak for London, where the rates are something enormous.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: This will not lower them.
CAPTAIN NORTON: My contention is that this will lower then. The tendency will be to largely increase the membership of friendly societies throughout the country and to make larger numbers of working men think it worth while to become members of these institutions. The result will be that fewer persons will come on the rates. In two London parishes contiguous to the one I represent, which is in a much more favourable position, the rates are 9s. 6d in the pound. If we can do anything which will lower rates, which press most severely on the working classes throughout the country, and more especially in London, it is our duty to do it. I hope the House will pass the Bill. If the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division presses his Motion, I shall be obliged to vote against it.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: My hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone dismissed the Bill in one sentence. He said it was a bad Bill. I shall honour the Bill because, using the language of commerce, of the confidence I have in the drawers, the great friendly societies of the country; and I have no doubt it will be met by the House at the maturity of it. My hon. friend who
1258
moved the rejection of the Bill made a complaint which was well founded. He denied the accusation that he was the representative of an outside body, but immediately following that he made certain suggestions which. I think, had as invidious an aspect as the one which he himself repudiated. The hon. Member suggested that the constituencies were using their influence in this matter. I have to say that the only representation I have received from my constituents has been against the Bill. I respect that opinion, and I respectfully say that I differ from it, and mean to support the Bill, which I believe to be well founded. My hon. friend said there was too much I sympathy nowadays. I believe that help is often highly economic in its character, and is not deserving the suggestion that it unduly increases the rates. My hon. friend referred to privileged paupers, and paupers on more favourable terms. There are times when poverty is no sin whatever, and when those who are so circumstanced may properly appeal to the guardians for assistance, and that assistance should not be withheld from those who have providently made provision for such an emergency to some extent by becoming members of friendly societies. There is an inconsistency in the suggestion of privileged poverty in regard to people who have placed themselves in that position, and who, it may be by momentary misfortune, apply to the guardians for relief. My hon. friend went further, and said that the way to benefit the friendly societies would be to reduce the relief to any one who could not prove that he had exercised providence. In other words, going back to the statute of Elizabeth, such people are to be allowed to starve. It recalls the time of Louis XIV., to whom a poor man said, "Your Majesty, I must live," and received the reply, "I do not see the necessity." I think these are principles not applicable to the present century.
My hon. friend said that the Bill shifted the injustice only a point. I think we may be thankful when injustice is removed a decimal point, for it is often an important factor. I think this Bill shifts it a material point. What are the objections which have been raised? It is said that the friendly societies should not be exceptionally treated? I am not going to repeat the many arguments used in reply

1259
to that, but I venture to add this, that the friendly societies have exercised the most potent influence of any institution upon our national character. They have built up a character which is adverse to pauperism. They have not only directly saved the rates, but they have made the character which prevents men coming upon the rates. The friendly societies deserve to be treated exceptionally, and made what I believe they will be, a means of saving to the State. I reply to those who use the argument against exceptional treatment that the friendly societies have already been exceptionally treated, and rightly so, by the Act of 1894. I would point out that in a Supplementary Estimate we voted to the friendly societies fund of this country, together with the savings banks last year, £11,000, purely in encouragement of thrift to make up the difference between the interest received by the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the friendly societies fund, and the interest which the National Debt Commissioners are by statute compelled to pay to the friendly societies. That is; done on the principle that such expenditure is economic in the interest of the State. We are challenged to say why this particular case of the sick fund of the friendly societies should be treated exceptionally. I concur with many of the remarks about its being too narrow. But what has been the cause of the subscription to the friendly society? To provide for a special and particular emergency—that of ill health or sickness. Now, allowing that there has been under friendly society administration some latitude about that point, I claim that the contributor has a right to that miserable 5s. in time of ill health. He is at home sick or assumed to be sick. Surely the sum may well be taken for many comforts which cannot otherwise be provided. There is a distinct hypothecation for that particular purpose altogether apart from any State allowances which may be made. My friend the Member for the Tewkesbury Division said—Why not include other poverty as well as that of members of friendly societies? I have endeavoured to justify the distinction, but I will go another step. In the case of the friendly society it is a distinctly and clearly defined sum which is received. In the other cases
1260
suggested it would require more or less proof that providence had been exercised, such as a deposit in a savings bank, or a pension from the Army, though such a pension, excellent as it is, is not provision for sickness. But under the Act of 1894 there will still be discretion to deal with all those cases when presented and proved, and all that this Bill says is that in particular cases, where relief is needed, the discretion will not be exercised. It provides for the particular case, but leaves the general discretion. I think there is exceptionality which justifies its being engrafted on the Act of 1894.
Another point of some importance is that this is a step in the direction of the best reform of our pauper laws of recent times. I mean in the direction of classification. We want to separate if we can the provident poor from those who have not been provident. I think when you have such a real qualification as consistent subscription to a friendly society, there is a denominator of the worthy and provident poor as distinguished from others who have not the same claim to consideration. I repeat—and this is the great underlying, principle of the Bill—that the foundation of our action in reference to the poor law ought to be at once to relieve and to try to restore. Amid the civilisation of our time, and the wonderful industrial developments which are going on, there are victims of that civilisation in peace just as there are victims in war. There are those who fall out of the ranks and can be restored, and who are distinct from those who never make an effort in the march of civilisation. This is not altogether a philanthropic movement. The expression of human sympathy which has been shown in this debate, and desire exhibited in a large measure for the humane administration of the poor law indicates a hope that some effort ought to be made to bring the soldiers of our great industrial army back into the ranks and make them march again. Apart from its sympathetic aspect, this measure has its economic side. A Bill like this I will be of infinite benefit to the State because it will raise the general status of the poor, and do something to help them to help themselves. (2.3.)
MR. FIELD: In addressing myself to the subject under the consideration of the House, I do not desire for one moment to repeat the arguments adduced by previous speakers. I merely wish to say that the hon. Member for South Tyrone objected to this Bill mainly on the ground that it interfered with the independence of local government. The hon. Member mnst be aware of the fact that the Local Government Board of Ireland have a tremendous power of interference with regard to local government in Ireland. Local government in Ireland is practically nonexistent, and this Bill gives the Boards of Guardians greater power to resist the Local Government Board. Then I would say that the hon. Member must know that, at least under former conditions, what were called poor law guardians were not guardians of the poor at all but rate protectors. I remember orders being given in Ireland, in the area in which I live, not to give outdoor relief at all; they refused to give outdoor relief, and wanted to shut up all the people in the district in the unions. Such a state of things as that ought to be put an end to. There cannot be any doubt whatever that if the discussions on this subject enforce upon the public mind the necessity of this poor law reform they will have achieved a very useful purpose. The poor law of England has no parallel among the civilised nations of the earth. Poor law in this country means imprisonment, and it is subject to no classification whatever. The good, the bad, the in different are all brought together, and in Ireland the men and women who go into the poorhouses are imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. The more you keep people out of the workhouse the better it is for the State, and therefore I cannot understand men with philanthropic minds objecting to this Bill. I do not believe in imprisoning the people in what is called the workhouse, though why it is called the workhouse I do not understand, unless it be for the fact that no work is done there. In my opinion, the whole poor law system requires to be inquired into. I should be out of order in entering into a long argument, but I may say if we adopted the American system, where men are made to work for their living, and rooms are appropriated to the use of the old people in State hospitals for the sick, I
1262
think it would be a great improvement on the poor law of this country. Therefore, I say, any legislation which has the effect of increasing the judicious dispensation of outdoor relief, ought to receive encouragement in this House.
Another thing that ought to be considered is the tremendous cost of the administration. By the time a work house is built and the officials paid, 75 per cent. of the money devoted to the relief of the poor is diverted, but supposing it is only 50 per cent., is it wise that half the money devoted to the relief of the poor——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself to the Bill.
MR. FIELD: As I understand, this is a system of outdoor relief, and in my opinion outdoor relief will be found to be more economical than the present system. I submit respectfully to the House that it reduces to a temporary condition of things that which under the present system might develop into what is called permanent pauperism, because it is perfectly evident that to go into the workhouse means nothing less than demoralisation; therefore the longer you keep people out of the workhouse, the better for all. I submit to the House that what we ought to do is to support this Bill and lift up the working man into a position which would encourage thrift, and by encouraging thrift, reduce the rates. There is no doubt that friendly societies have kept down the rates, and therefore I trust that if the Government is to interfere in this Bill at all, it will interfere in support of it, because it is a useful measure. There is another matter to be considered with regard to friendly societies. The members of a friendly society are examined by a doctor before admission into the society, and unless a man is a good life, he will not be admitted into the society, because he might come on the sick fund sooner than he was entitled to. This class therefore is an exceptional one, and is entitled to exceptional treatment, and I think it would be a good State investment that this Bill should pass. The Bill, I understand, was passed before, and surely it

1263
can pass again. The reasons for passing it last, year surely exist now, and ought to be good reasons for its passing this year. Objection has been taken by some hon. Members to the fact that it would be a temptation to the guardians, but if the Bill is passed the guardians will have absolute discretion.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then why interfere with them?
MR. FIELD: We want to give them more power. Another reason I would put to the hon. Gentleman, which will strongly appeal to him, is this, that as a rule the members of these friendly societies are temperate men, and they naturally dislike being obliged, owing to the stress of circumstances, to have to go into the workhouses. I trust the House will pass this Bill by an overwhelming majority, because it divides the slothful from the thrifty, and the result would be to lift up the existing poor law system and put it into a more Christian shape than it now is.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down said that if this Bill were passed they would put the poor law into a more Christian form than it now was. Such an expression as that intimated that those who had gone before us in that matter had not been Christian-like and that he was not prepared to accept. This, though a small Bill, was one which required a great deal of consideration. Surely if this Bill introduced today was intended to change the poor law of the country, the Front Bench ought to have given its opinion upon it. He would further say that years back the principle of this Bill had been considered and rejected, and clearly they ought not to be in a hurry now to pass it through this House. Hon. Members claimed that it went some way to remove injustice, but whatever injustice it removed it created greater injustice than it removed. It removed injustice towards a privileged class, those who had received sick pay from friendly societies; but what became of the unhappy people who had lapsed in their payment, and others? There were a
1264
great many other persons who had been equally thrifty in other ways who would be ignored by this legislation. The hon. Member for South Islington had said he would endorse this Bill, because it was asked for by a very worthy class, viz., the friendly societies; but legislation should not, he thought, be conceded on such grounds. They must not approach this question as sentimental politicians, but as practical legislators, and if they passed this Bill they would change the whole basis of the poor law, substituting thrift for destitution as the governing principle of poor law relief; and, while it was difficult to prove the destitution of the applicant for poor law relief, it would be a hundred times more difficult to prove his thrift. It was very undesirable, in his opinion, that this Bill should become law, though it was argued that it should, because it encouraged thrift. True, it did encourage thrift, but only to a limit, only up to 5s. a week; and he might go-further, and say that it would encourage applications for poor law relief by those who had not more than 5s. a week, with a view to turning that 5s. into 10s. if this law was passed. This Bill was urged strongly in favour of friendly societies, but he noticed that the noble Lord Northbrook in another place last year had referred to the fact that, having regard to their funds, the friendly societies only represented a moderate and appreciable, but not an extraordinary, amount of the general thrift of the country; the noble Lord pointed out that, whereas the Post Office Savings Banks were, responsible for £100,000,000, the, friendly societies represented £32,000,000; and therefore, on the ground of finance, if this Bill was to go through at all, it ought to be amended so as to include every form of thrift. He submitted that they ought not to limit the various methods by which saving might be encouraged. Many friendly societies were mere dividing or deposit societies, and could not be put on the same level as the larger societies. He felt convinced, if this Bill were passed into law, the system of poor law now in existence would be entirely changed. He opposed the Bill.
MR. SOARESsaid that as a Guardian and

1265
a member of various friendly societies, he heartily supported this Bill. He said he thought the position of the question was that this Bill last year passed with the unanimous approval of the House of Commons, and was then destroyed in the House of Lords. The question was whether the opinion of the House of Lords was going to override the opinion of the House of Commons or not. Lord Salisbury had said that if the will of the people was clearly expressed the Lords must bow to that decis on. He therefore hoped the Second Reading that day would be carried by a large majority, and then perhaps Lord Salisbury would use his great influence to enable it to become law. He acknowledged that the Bill contained a large principle, namely that the poor law guardians would hence forth be obliged to reward thrift, and he believed that that principle would have to be developed. If this Bill were passed, they could not confine thrift to members of friendly societies, but would have to extend it to other kinds of thrift; and he would gladly support any Bills introduced for that purpose. Those opposed to the Bill put forward some very curious arguments. It was stated, for instance, if this Rill became law, friendly societies in future would be subject to State control. That was a thing, however, which he did not believe, but he would like to congratulate the hon. Member who had made the statement on the fact that he had evidently been converted by the arguments of the Opposition during the last four days on the Education Bill, with regard to the subject that grants of public money must be accompanied by popular control. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill also blamed them for supporting the Bill on the ground that it was a very simple matter to defend the claims of organised bodies of men for relief out of the Public Funds. This criticism came with rather a bad grace from members of the party who rode into power in '95 on Old Age Pensions. In fact, it was rather like Satan rebuking sin. It had also been stated that this Bill would not promote uniformity in the action of boards of guardians, who might evade it by altering the scale of poor law relief; but he
1266
did not believe any board of guardians would be guilty of a practice of that kind.
Another argument which had been urged was that it would tend to raise the general scale of outdoor relief. As a poor law guardian, if it did that, he would be exceedingly glad, because in many cases the outdoor relief was absolutely inadequate. It had been said that they might go back to the bad old days when poor law relief was given indiscriminately, and an enormous burden was imposed on the rates thereby. But the cause of outdoor relief being so badly given then was faulty administration. If guardians saw that they had efficient inspectors, and that cases were properly examined, they would run no risk of the squandering of public money.
Finally the hon. Member enunciated the good old Tory doctrine to which he could not subscribe, viz., that poverty must be punished.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: No.
MR. SOARES: I understood the hon. Member to say that he agreed that outdoor relief should carry with it electoral disabilities and the brand of pauperism.
MR. VICARY GIBBS: I said that it did carry it.
MR. SOARES: And that you approved of it. I absolutely disagree with that doctrine. It is our duty, as far as we can, to brighten the lives of those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen into poverty, and for these reasons I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Before the debate closes I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will tell us what action the | Government intend to take in regard to this Bill. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has made a strong speech against the measure, and we should like to know whether the Local Government Board today are of the same opinion as when the hon. Member represented them a couple of years ago.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I in no way pretended to represent the Local Government Board; I should not presume to do any such thing. What I said was that, by direction of the Local Government Board, I had spent a good deal of time opposing this Bill.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I have no doubt my hon. friend was educated in his present opinions by the knowledge he gained at the Local Government Board, and I want to know whether the Board have changed their view since the hon. Member was a member. In 1894 the principle was fought out. Today the Guardians may, if they think well, not take into consideration anything up to 5s. that a man receives from a friendly society. That is an excellent principle, and if the word "shall" was substituted for the word "may" it would be a great benefit, not only to the friendly societies, but also to those who, being in distress, require temporary help, and to the ratepayers themselves, because it would keep out of the workhouse many who, by the present hard and fast rules, would be forced to accept indoor relief, when a little judicious help would set them on their legs again. Where the Act of 1894 has been availed of, it has worked very satisfactorily. But supposing in my constituency the Guardians had adopted the Act, while in the next division a reactionary Board had decided differently: there would clearly be a grievance on the part of members of friendly societies in the latter district. What we desire to know is whether the Government will not only help the overwhelming majority of Member's of this House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill today, but also give them an opportunity to pass the measure through its remaining stages. I believe all the members of the Government, in this House at any rate, have pledged themselves in favour of the principle of this Bill. The opposition is not strong; it is very little assistance that we require; and I hope the Government, by a little firmness, will enable us to accede to the wishes of the 5,000,000 members of friendly societies that the exercise of this power should be compulsory instead of optional.
MR. BARTLEY: This Bill deals with a portion of a
1268
very large subject. We are all interested in the subject of poor law reform. For many years I brought in a Bill making thrift the test of outdoor relief, the object of the measure being to discriminate very carefully between those who had done nothing for themselves and those who had exercised thrift in one form or another. That scheme seemed to be based on a reasonable and sound basis, and I believed it would give an impetus to thrift. To a certain extent, there is a glimmering of the same idea in this Bill, I but I think it is not on a reasonable basis, because it gives a premium to one special form of thrift to the exclusion of others. There are many excellent friendly societies, but there are other forms of thrift quite as good, and many which are really more efficient. Under this Bill, however, people who exercised those other forms of thrift would receive no benefit whatever. A general scheme basing outdoor relief on individual effort—although it would require very careful handling—would, at any rate, have the element of benefit in it; but I hesitate to support a Bill which picks out one particular form of thrift, as in the present case. There are friendly societies which have done as much good to this country as any class of institutions in existence. But there are friendly societies and friendly societies. Some are inefficient and financially unsound. The Bill does not discriminate between them. I should be sorry to do anything to prevent the growth of the idea that thrift should be the basis of outdoor relief, but I cannot support the Bill in its present form. We all sympathise with these people, and would do everything possible for them, but the object of legislation should be to raise and benefit people, not simply to consider poverty as a virtue. Every piece of legislation should tend to make people depend more upon themselves. Without self-reliance there can be no progress. I should strongly approve of this or any other Government going into the whole question of outdoor relief, indoor relief, and pensions. In regard to the feasibility of pensions—a question closely allied with this—I have always said that unless they and all other forms of beneficial receipts outside the workhouse were

1269
based on the principle that the individual should have made some effort himself, they would do more harm than good.
SIR MARK STEWART: Although I fully endorse many of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I cannot agree with all his conclusions. The House is; generally agreed that in any old age pension scheme an effort must be made to help and reward only those who help themselves, and that their respective positions must be taken into consideration. My hon. friend objects to this Bill because it takes one single form of thrift. But it is absolutely impossible to bring in a Bill, with any hope of success, which shall be so comprehensive as to include all, and I think the promoters of this Bill are quite justified in bringing in the measure which almost succeeded in passing last year, and which has been amended in some degree with, I hope, the approval of the Local Government Board. I would point out that all forms of thrift do not stand on the same basis. If a man puts his money into a savings bank, for example, he can withdraw it at any time, whereas he cannot withdraw his money from a friendly society. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will be able to tell us that the Government approve and will support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. GALLOWAY: I entirely agree with the principle that those who help themselves should be encouraged to do so, and that we should do nothing to deter their efforts, and I believe it is in that view that this Bill has been introduced. But the discussion has brought to light many points which had not been noticed before. The hon. Member for North Islington said very truly that the Bill makes no distinction between what he classified as good and bad friendly societies. How would he define a good or a bad friendly society?
MR. BARTLEY: I said financially sound and financially unsound.
MR. GALLOWAY: I have never been able to make out what is and what is not a financially sound friendly society, or what actuarial soundness is. I am certain of this, however, that actuarial soundness in a friendly society does not necessarily mean that the valuation of the lodge or court of the society should be equal to the full amount of the benefits which, under some extraordinary circumstance, it might suddenly be called upon to pay. No such case has ever arisen in the history of the friendly society movement. But the question of sick pay is a very important point. Many of us who are interested in this movement have tried to get friendly societies to distinguish between sick pay and superannuation allowance. There are many friendly societies paying what is really superannuation allowance under the name of sick pay. I understand that those cases would be excluded from this Bill. If that is so, unless a distinction is made, very grave injustice will be done in some cases. While I think the principle of the Bill is undoubtedly in the right direction, it would be unfair, in my opinion, to make this single exception in the case of members of friendly societies. Surely there are other modes of thrift which ought to be encouraged just as much as this. As I understand the Bill, it is really the thin edge of the wedge, and if the principle were once laid down we should then have to go on and include other forms of thrift. It is because I believe that this is a step in the right direction that I think the State ought to make an exception in favour of this Bill. As we all know, a large proportion of sickness comes in the later days of life, and it is because I believe that this proposal will be of the greatest assistance to a deserving class that I am prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill, although I am of opinion that many Amendments will be necessary to make the Bill workable.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I am sorry that I was not able to be present when my hon. friend introduced this Bill. There are many grave questions arising out of this measure which I think demand

1271
serious consideration. This Bill is, I know, promoted by the great friendly societies which we all recognise as most deserving of support, but there is some little danger in our desire to promote their interests of losing sight of the large questions which are involved. This Bill for the first time limits the discretion of guardians in giving relief, and in obliging them to give relief to a class who are not destitute. Hitherto the basis of the poor law has been clearly understood to be that only persons are entitled to poor law relief who are destitute. The Bill now proposes that—
"In granting out-door relief to a member of any friendly society, the hoard of Guardians shall not take into consideration any sum received from such friendly society as sick pay except, in so far as such sum shall exceed five shillings a week."
That is to say that Boards of Guardians, whatever opinion they may have as to the desirability of giving out-door relief to a member of the friendly society, are obliged to give that relief providing he does not receive more than 5s. a week. Boards of Guardians will, at any rate, be conscious of many other cases which will require and deserve relief quite as much as the members of friendly societies, and they will not be able to assist such cases. I consider that this is a grave limitation of the discretion of the guardians, and can only be justified upon very strong grounds. I think it is very undesirable to limit the discretion of guardians in any way. It is clear that we cannot stop with fairness at the proposal made in this Bill, and we must recognise the claims of those who are not destitute and who had not an income exceeding 5s. a week who do not belong to friendly societies, If my hon. friend's object is to encourage thrift we ought to encourage not one form but every form of thrift. I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he thinks this is the best way to promote thrift? Is it desirable to encourage thrift by an extension of poor law relief or by other ways? Are these persons who are not destitute to be regarded as paupers or pensioners? I do not know what answer the right hon. Gentleman will make, but probably he will regard them as paupers. If so, are they to be regarded as a privileged class of paupers?
1272
Are they to lose their votes in consequence of receiving poor law relief, or are we to have a provision that they shall not be disfranchised although they receive poor law relief? What we are doing is to create by a side wind a kind of old age pensioners.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: But this Bill only applies to sick pay.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: My hon. friend knows very well that a great many of the people who are in receipt of sick pay are those who are too old to earn their livelihood. This applies to a great many members of friendly societies, and the fact that this sick pay is paid to aged persons is one of the causes why many of these societies are not in a very stable position financially. That is why I suggest that, in a measure of this kind, we shall have to go further and deal with those who draw from the superannuation fund as well. If we pass this Bill, we shall create a class of pensioners who are to have their small pensions increased by a payment out of the rates under the name of poor law relief. I am in favour of a reasonable form of pension, but I do not want a scheme to be adopted in which the State contribution is made out of the rates instead of being made out of the taxes. I think the House will see the danger of introducing by this Bill a system of pensions out of the rates. The question is whether these persons will be in receipt of outdoor relief or receiving what is to be regarded as a pension. Surely they must be receiving one or the other, and I urge the House to consider particularly the effect this Bill may have upon any scheme of pensions which may in the future be passed into law. This is a most important question, and we ought not to approach it by passing a Bill like this without due consideration.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Before I say a word or two as to the views I hold in regard to this Bill, I think I am justified in congratulating the House upon the good start which the new system established by the new Rules has met with today by the presence of hon. Gentlemen

1273
in sufficient numbers to take an active interest in this important subject. Certainly I can congratulate myself upon the fact that this subject has been approached in a sufficiently earnest manner to show that a large number of hon. Members are deeply interested in the administration of the poor law and the welfare of the poor people of this country. I am confident that whether the speeches made this afternoon have been in support or in opposition to this measure they have been well worthy of the subject, and prove that hon. Gentlemen are deeply interested in local government, and in the well-being of the people in general.
I will now endeavour to give the reasons why I intend to give my support to this Bill, not only as a private Member, but also as the Minister for the time being responsible for the Department connected with poor law administration. If I shared the views expressed by my hon. friend who has just sat down, and who has spoken with all the authority which attaches to his position and experience on this question, I should not support this Bill. I do not think I am misrepresenting the opinions he has expressed when I say that I think he has assumed a great deal in addition to what is proposed by this measure. My hon. friend has assumed that by the passing of this Bill you are proceeding from poor law relief to a pension system. I do not hesitate to say that, while that suggestion may be justifiable in connection with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the introduction of this Bill, I could not under any conceivable circumstances advise the House to support, or support myself, a measure which proposed to exempt from the penalties of the poor law those who have received poor law relief. The suggestion that those who are to receive this particular kind of relief are to be exempt from the disability which at present follows upon the receipt of poor law relief is one which I could not support. I think my hon. friend is asking the House to go further than he should do when he says that by the adoption of this Bill the House is committing itself to a policy; by which a certain class of people will
1274
get a special kind of poor law relief, and will be treated as pensioners.
I think I am justified in asking the House to look at this Bill for what it really is. This Bill proposes only a very small change in the law, but the debate seems to have been conducted on lines which would have been more justifiable if we had been discussing the policy of: 1894 rather than the policy of 1902. The real question before the House today is not whether you are going to make this exception in lavour of a particular classes, because that was done by the Act of 1894. The question of persons being entitled to special consideration was deliberately adopted by Parliament in 1894 and why? Because those immediately concerned in the administration of the poor law had practically adopted it at that time, and it was found necessary and desirable to give the sanction of Parliament to that which had become the practice of Boards of Guardians. The policy of 1894 was of a discretionary kind, and the question we have to decide is not, as it has been put by some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, whether or no you should limit the discretionary power of Boards of Guardians, but it is whether you will give to the applicant for poor law relief, who in the days of his prosperity has made an effort to save something himself, and who has been overtaken by ill-health or that form of old age which makes self-support impossible, a statutory right to better treatment than his neighbour who has made no such effort, or whether you are going to leave it to the guardians to treat those two men men upon the same level. From the point of view of Parliamentary argument it is comparatively easy to argue this case from either point of view, but I ask my hon. friends who, with so much ability and good reason have opposed this principle, whether they would find it quite as easy to argue this question with a poor man who has made his effort to save, and in his extremity finds himself treated exactly in the same way as his neighbour who has made no such effort at all. It does not meet this question to say that we are only dealing with one form of thrift in this Bill.
Even if that be a just criticism it is no reason for the rejection of the Second

1275
Reading of the Bill today. This Bill is an Amendment of the Act of 1894 which recognised this particular form of thrift as one deserving the special consideration of Parliament. All that this Bill does now is to ask Parliament to make that uniform which is at present discretionary, and to give to the individual the statutory right which at present is not his right at all, but which is left within the discretion of the Board of Guardians. The wider proposal to include all forms of thrift is one which is worthy of the attention of Parliament, and I should like to see this question discussed. I recognise that we cannot frame our proposals in regard to these matters as we should like, but I think it would be a great mistake if the House of Commons was to offer a direct negative to this Bill simply because the larger question is also one which is worthy of consideration. Let me point out that there is a very wide distinction between this form of thrift and other forms. Hon. Members have asked—Why should this assistance be specially given to members of friendly societies? This Bill does not propose to give special advantages to members of friendly societies as such. Something has been said about the solvency of friendly societies. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Manchester that it is the most difficult question in the world to find out what is meant by the solvency of friendly societies. I think all those hon. Members who have examined this question will agree with me when I say that if it were not for the fact that a great many persons who, out of their scanty earnings, contribute to friendly societies and never have cause to make demands upon their funds, it would be impossible for any friendly society to exist. No man will be able to get the advantage offered by this Bill unless he has not only become a subscribing member of a friendly society, but he must also have been overtaken by sickness, or by that form of old age which is first cousin to sickness and which deprives a man of the ability to earn his own living. A man must put aside out of his earnings something in order to justify the receipt of this assistance when he is sick. In the second place, he has to lose his health and become a broken-down member of society before he can receive this
1276
benefit. Surely there is all the difference in the world between this class of thrift and that class which takes the form of deposits in the savings bank and the purchase of house property. Let the House remember that the man who puts his money in the savings bank can draw it out and spend it upon anything he likes during the time he is in good health. The man who invests his money in any kind of property or in any other form has control over it, and he can realise it or dispose of it whenever he likes. On the other hand the man who subscribes to a friendly society gets no return whatever for his money unless he is sick, and very often he gets no return whatever for the money he has contributed. Surely this is a different kind and form of thrift which justifies special treatment at the hands of the House of Commons. If I thought that any proposal of this kind was going to undermine the foundation on which the poor law system of this country rests I should be the last man in this House to vote for this Bill. I have read the Reports of the great Commission which were the foundation of the new poor law system. Anybody who has tried to realise what the condition of things in our country was previous to the introduction of the poor law would be almost acting criminally if he knowingly did anything which would be likely to cause a return to that condition of things. It is because I take entirely a different view that I give my support to this Bill. I am against any weak administration of the poor law, and I would treat the wastrel and the vagabond, and the man who makes his wife and children paupers because of his own degraded habits in a severe way, and I would make life a burden to him while he remains in the workhouse. I try to insist upon it that in the administration of our workhouses we should make such men realise that if we are compelled to keep them out of the rates we will do it at some discomfort to them. I ask is there anything in the acceptance of the principle of this measure which will weaken the administration of the poor law, as between the poor unfortunate sufferer by the wayside, who is suffering through sickness, and the person who is a pauper, because he will not work or will not be honest, sober, and industrious. I say there is nothing in this Bill which will

1277
tend to weaken the administration of the poor law. On the contrary, I believe it will strengthen that administration and also strengthen the position of the Boards of Guardians.
Something has been said as to the discretion which ought to be left to the Boards of Guardians. I am for giving a wide discretion to local authorities in many matters, but there are some details of poor law administration as to which I regret that Boards of Guardians I have so much discretion at the present moment. Nothing tends to bring the poor law into disrepute more than when men earning low wages who have hard work to make both ends meet find that when they apply for relief in one union there is a system in force which is lax and feeble, while in another union it is rigid and severe. I am sure that my hon. friend who moved the rejection of this Bill advanced powerful arguments in support of his contention, and I admit that he is right when he says that you are not going to get uniformity by this Bill. I think, however, that that is a strong argument in favour of it. Boards of Guardians will still have discretion as to whether relief shall take the form of outdoor relief or admission to the workhouse. That discretion must remain, and it is not removed by this Bill. Even if the administration is not uniform, and the practice of different Boards of Guardians may vary, if this Bill becomes law a man who is a member of a friendly society and adversity overtakes him, and he falls sick, will not have to appeal to those who administer relief, for he will have a right to say, "I have saved something which is my own, and I have a right to ask for such assistance as you can give me." I share entirely the views of my hon. friends who have spoken in commendation of the good work which has been done by our Boards of Guardians. Perhaps I know more about the working of Boards of Guardians than many hon. Members who are not in communication with them daily. I know how unpopular the work is, and it is my business to know how marvellous is the change in the condition of the working classes of this country during the last sixty years. I know that marvellous change is not altogether due to poor law administration, but it
1278
is largely due to the fact that guardians had to risk unpopularity when they might have taken kinder and more philanthropic lines by maintaining the strict law in regard to the administration of the poor, so they have taught the people to realise that self-respect, self-control, and self-denial are amongst the most valuable characteristics of our race. I should be the last person to support this Bill if I thought it would do anything to stop this good work, but I think we shall do well to follow the course which we have before adopted, and do our best to make a wide distinction between those persons who are deserving and those who are undeserving, and offer inducements to men who make provision when they are able to maintain themselves against the day when they are no longer able to maintain themselves. From this point of view I believe this Bill to be a step in the right direction.
Something has been said about the fundamental principle upon which the poor law rests, namely the question of destitution. I think there is something to be said for an Amendment of the law in regard to the question of destitution. I am not going to discuss that point now, but if through the action of private Members or in any other way a discussion of the greater and wider question can be arranged, nobody will rejoice more than I shall; and I shall be ready to take my share in the discussion of the question and do my best to contribute towards a solution of this problem. But because we are not able to discuss the whole question or remove the whole difficulty, or start on new lines, are we to say that nothing must be done until we can deal with the question as a whole. My decision in regard to this Bill has not been founded upon any cursory consideration of the question, but after most careful and exhaustive inquiry into the whole question. I firmly believe, as the Minister responsible for the poor law administration, that a reform of this kind will be beneficial in the interest of the community, and of those who desire to see the poor law wisely administered. It is because I hold those views that I sincerely hope the House will pass the Second Reading of this Bill today. I

1279
shall only be too glad, if I have the opportunity, of assisting the further progress of the measure through the House.
(3.58.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 19. (Division List, No. 167.)

AYES.

Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. P.

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Ffrench, Peter

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Field, William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Allen, Chas P. (Gloue., Stroud)

Finch, George H.

Lough, Thomas

Anstruther, H. T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Austin, Sir John

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lundon, W.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Bain, Col James Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Balfour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Barlow, John Emmott

Flower, Ernest

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Crae, George

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Fadden, Edward

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Govern, T.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gardner, Ernest

Majendie, James A. H.

Bignold, Arthur

Gilhooly, James

Malcolm, Ian

Bigwood, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Black, Alexander William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Boland, John

Gore, Hn. S. F. S. Ormsby-(Linc.

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Grant, Corrie

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Gretton, John

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

Brigg, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Milvain, Thomas

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Burns, John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Morrell, George Herbert

Caldwell, James

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cameron, Robert

Helder, Augustus

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murphy, John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chamberlain, J. Ansten (Worc'r

Horniman, Frederick John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hoult, Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Chapman, Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Clancy, John Joseph

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Coddington, Sir William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Cogan, Denis J.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norman, Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Joicey, Sir James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Kimber, Henry

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W).

Craig, Robert Hunter

King, Sir Henry Seymour

O'Dowd, John

Crean, Eugene

Kitson, Sir James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cremer, William Randal

Knowles, Lees

O'Kelly, James (Roseommon, N

Crombie, John William

Lambert, George

O'Malley, William

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lawson, John Grant

Paulton, James Mellor

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Doogan, P. C.

Leamy, Edmund

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Pierpoint, Robert

Duke, Henry Edward

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Pirie, Duncan V.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Plummer, Walter R.

Dunn, Sir William

Leng, Sir John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Price, Robert John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Priestley, Arthur

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Randles, John S.

Fenwick, Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rankin, Sir James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wason, John Carhcart (Orkney

Ratcliff, R. F.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Webb, Colonel William George

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Weir, James Galloway

Rea, Russell

Soares, Ernest J.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

Reddy, M.

Spear, John Ward

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Whiteley, H (Ashton-u'r-Lyne

Renwick, George

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Richards, Henry Charles

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tennant, Harold John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Roche, John

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Wilson, W. (Worcestersh., N.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Runciman, Walter

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Woodhonse, Sir. J. T (H'dersfield

Rutherford, John

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wallace, Robert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Yoxall, James Henry

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Seely, MajorJ. E. B.(I. of Wight

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Seton-Karr, Henry

Warde, Colonel C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

Sir Edward Strachey and Sir Samuel Hoare.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

NOES.

Banbury, Frederick George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Bill, Charles

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Bond, Edward

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Boulnois, Edmund

Russell, T. W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Sharpe, William Edward T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Vicary Gibbs and Mr. William Lawrence.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G (Oxf. Univ

Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday, 13th June.

THE BISHOPRIC OF SOUTH WARK BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
COLONEL STOPFORD-SACK-VTLLE: In moving the Second Reading of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill, I do not mean to detain the House long, but as there was a good deal of interest taken in it by the country last year, I desire to make a few observations upon the present measure. The House may remember that a Bill very similar to the present one came down to us from the House of Lords last year. When it came to this House notice of opposition to it was put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, and it failed from lack of time to discuss it. The present proposal is virtually the result of a conference which in April, 1899, was held between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester, the two Bishops who are
1282
primarily concerned in this Bill. The proposal is to cut the present diocese of Rochester into two, and to form round the cathedral city of Rochester a homogeneous and riparian diocese, consisting of parishes in the county of Kent, and to add certain parishes in the arch-diocese of Canterbury; and further to constitute certain parishes within the county of London, and others in Surrey, into a new diocese, to be called the diocese of Southwark. The diocese of Rochester would then have a population of something like 400,000 souls. The new diocese of Southwark would also be a homogeneous diocese, consisting of urban, suburban, and rural districts. It is proposed for this purpose to revive the Bishoprics Act of 1878, which was passed under the auspices of Lord Cross, the only departure from the provisions of that Act being that it is proposed to give a slightly larger income to the two Bishops than was proposed in the schedule of that Act. The reason for this will be obvious to the House. The diocese of Southwark would be an exceptionally poor and a very populous diocese, and it is thought only reasonable that an income

1283
of £4,000 a year should be given to the new Bishop. The house at Kennington, now the residence of the Bishop of Rochester, would become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark, and certain sums arising out of the sale of Addington are to be applied to the provision and upkeep of a new house for the Bishop of Rochester, whose income will suffer to the extent of £500 a year. There is a power for further re-adjustment of boundaries between Canterbury and Rochester, should it be thought desirable at any future time to diminish the area of the arch-diocese of Canterbury.
This scheme has been rendered necessary, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, by the enormous increase in the population of the diocese of Rochester, and by the inconvenient shape of the present diocese, formed in 1875, which consists of two portions. Anyone who looks at the map will see that South London, and the area round Rochester, are divided into two by Canterbury, the cathedral of Rochester being at the extreme end, and by no means convenient for the county of Surrey. We cannot expect the people of Southwark to have an acute feeling of affection for the cathedral of Rochester, from which they are separated by so great a distance. This scheme owes much to the late Bishop Thorold, who worked so wisely and so strenuously for the restoration of the Collegiate Church of Southwark, which is now, if this Bill obtains the sanction of the House, to be constituted the cathedral of the new See. I should like to read a few words used by Bishop Thorold in regard to the increase of the population in his then diocese. He said—
"In 1891 the population of this diocese was 1,938,787, or a little short of 2,000,000. During the ten years between 1881 and 1891 it increased by about 350,000 souls, that is, at the rate of about 35,000 a year…. Two English dioceses, and two only—London and Manchester—have a larger population, and each of these possesses advantages of wealth with which we cannot in any way compete…. Our single diocese exceeds by 500,000 the total population of Wales…. Of our 2,000,000 people 1,600,000, or about four-fifths of the whole, are South Londoners."
I think that this will be enough to prove that no Bishop, however devoted (and the diocese has been exceptionally fortunate in its Bishops), can cope
1284
with such a population as this. The House will remember that one of the most learned and versatile of modern prelates, Bishop Creighton, broke down under the weight of the See of London. The House will wish to guard against a similar calamity again befalling the Church and will, I believe, be ready to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants of South London. I may be asked how can their wishes be shown. I shall not dwell upon the approval of Convocation in January, 1902, and of the House of Laymen for the Province of Canter bury, which has had this question under consideration since 1888, and passed a resolution in May, 1897, stating that of the four proposals then considered by the Committee that in regard to Southwark was the most pressing of all, and also the ripest for action. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Rochester Diocesan Conference, in November, 1901, on a resolution proposed and seconded by two evangelical clergymen, unanimously approved of this scheme. If there are any details in it which do not commend themselves to all they can be discussed in Committee.
It is no new principle that increase of population justifies an increase in the number of Bishops. That principle remained dormant for many years after the Reformation, but during the last reign it received great development. In 1847 Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister, was responsible for legislation by which the diocese of Manchester was founded. During the administration of Mr. Disraeli, St. Albans was founded in 1875; Truro in 1876; and Newcastle, Liverpool, Southwell, and Wakefield in 1878. In particular may I call the attention of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the fact that when the late Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister he took into his own hands the reconstitution of the Bishopric of Bristol. It was under his special auspices that the arrangement which had lasted some time was altered and that Gloucester and Bristol were again divided. All these sees, with the exception of Manchester, were founded by the private munificence of members of the Church of England, and that, of course, will be the case in connection with the proposal I am now making. I

1285
should like to ask any of those who are acquainted with the dioceses I have named whether it is not a fact that in each case the formation of a new diocese has been attended with beneficial results, and has led to an increase of energy in all moral and spiritual efforts.
The hon. Member for North Cambridgeshire has an Amendment on the Paper which I think can be called relevant to the Bill only in the Parliamentary sense of the term. He tells us that in certain undefined parts of England disorderly proceedings contrary to ecclesiastical law have occurred; and he says, therefore, that no effect should be given to the wishes of South London. But surely if he looks upon the Bishop of Rochester with suspicion, he should be glad to clip his wings and reduce the area of his activity! The hon. Member looks upon Bishops as little better than spiritual policemen, whose duty it is to haul refractory clergymen to prison. But if the House or a Standing Joint Committee were called upon to increase the number of the police in Surrey, would it be a sound objection to make against such a proposal that widespread disorder continued to take place on Epsom Downs, which the county police had failed to restrain? Surely, if the policemen are not in sufficient numbers to discharge their duties efficiently, that is a good reason why the force should be increased. Objection is also taken to this Bill by the hon. Member for Devonport because of the poverty of the clergy; and a re-adjustment of incomes is suggested—as if that remedy had not been in gradual process of application for many years past by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But even by this Bill something is being done perhaps in that direction, because it takes £500 a year from the income of the See of Rochester towards that of the new Bishopric. On the subject of redistribution of episcopal revenues the House will allow me to quote some words written by Sir Walter Besant, an unprejudiced witness, for although at one time he read for Holy Orders, he did not become a clergyman. He said that—
"The Anglican Bishops, whose incomes seem to be large, cannot, as a rule, save much from what they receive. They are for the most part elderly when they are appointed; they have to keep an open house all the year round;
1286
they have to support every kind of charitable and religions enterprise; they are always contributing to the support of poor clergy, of clergymen's widows and orphans, and schools, and so on; they travel about, and are always obliged to keep up a staff of chaplains and secretaries. The Bishop is paid for the maintenance and leadership of the diocese, and all that his diocese means; he is the figure head, and chairman, and advocate; without a Bishop, the diocese falls to pieces."
I associate myself with those words of Sir Walter Besant; and if the hon. Member for Devonport, who is so anxious for an improvement in the incomes of the clergy, will only send a subscription of £5 to the Queen Victoria Clergy fund, he will do more towards his object than he can by moving his Amendment. I appear from the two hon. Members to those who represent the great manufacturing interests of South London and Surrey, to the Members for Southwark, for Lambeth, for Battersea, for Clapham, Croydon, Deptford, Greenwich. Woolwich, and Camberwell. Is there not almost unanimity as to the merits of this Bill among those who are so well qualified to speak for this industrial population, the chimneys of whose workshops and factories we can see from the windows of this House? If that be so, I ask the House to comply with the request made to them, and let the members of the Church of England have the privilege of finding out of their own pockets the funds which will enable the new Bishopric to be founded. The offer of £10,000 by "Ignotus" towards the endowment of a Bishopric of Birmingham, following on the example of the late Lady Rolle in Cornwall, shows how much enthusiasm such proposals still evoke, and may well encourage those who now appeal to the House of Commons for sympathy and support. When I think that the thoughts and the prayers of the whole diocese of Rochester on Sunday last were concentrated on the success of this effort, I can assure the House that it is with a deep feeling of responsibility that I now move the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member for North Cambridgeshire is the last man who ought to oppose this Bill, for, but for the efforts of the abbots and the Churchmen of old, that county instead of being famous for the venerable pile of Ely and the

1287
illustrious University of Cambridge, would still be a dismal swamp, the home of the coot and the bittern.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BRAND: In moving the Amendment standing in my name, I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that I fully appreciate all the difficulties which the Bishop of Rochester has had to encounter in the administration of his See. There has been an enormous increase in the population of the district of late, and we could have had no objection to a Bill of this kind unless other matters had arisen. We consider, however, that the vast majority of the Bishops of the Church have not done all that they could do in suppressing disorders in ritual, and seeing that the clergymen perform their duty according to the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman stated that everybody in the diocese was in favour of this Bill, but I have a letter from one of the rectors in the diocese which is certainly antagonistic to the Bill, and which I will read to the House. It is from the Rev. W. J. Sommerville, rector of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, and is dated 28th April, 1902. He says—
"You ask me my views on the Southwark Bishopric Bill now before Parliament. I cannot class myself as a supporter of the measure, for the following reasons—First, it seems to me only a nibbling attempt to deal with a very great and pressing problem. It is high time that the question of episcopal supervision for the whole of London should be dealt with in a broad and statesmanlike way. In the meanwhile, however, all that is necessary in this diocese is the appointment of a new Suffragan Bishop for the district round Rochester and Chatham. We get on exceedingly well under our two present and popular Bishops. The Canons of the Cathedral are not by any means underpaid or overworked, and one or two of them might be made suffragans to relieve the Bishop of the diocese of much routine work. Second:—There is no getting away from the fact that in that portion of the Rochester diocese which it is proposed shall form a part of the new diocese of Southwark ecclesiastical excesses and vagaries are rampant. The law is openly defied. Some of the churches are Roman in everything else but in name. It is high time that Parliament took steps to secure a reasonable compliance with the law of the Church and realm, which the Ritualists, in common with the rest of us,
1288
undertook to observe. Third:—My third and very strong objection to the Bill is based upon the ground of clerical poverty. The financial condition of many of the rural clergy is pitiable in the extreme; and is a scandal and disgrace to the wealthiest Church in Christendom. No other Church, as far as I am aware, degrades its ministers by making them the objects of a pitying sort of contempt, and the recipients of doles, gifts of old clothes, charity dinners, &c. During the past year some cases of almost incredible hardship have come to my notice. A beneficed clergyman and his wife in Essex died within six months of each other practically from starvation. Both the Rural Dean and the doctor told me they were unable to supply themselves with medical necessaries and comforts. If the present state of affairs is allowed to go on unchecked, disaster is in store for us. Religion will be brought into contempt, as the English nation will never respect a clergyman out at elbows, and down at the heels. Everywhere nowadays one hears the cry for more curates; but no wonder young men are declining to take orders under present conditions. In this diocese alone, which is not by any means among the poorest, a capital sum of more than £100,000 is necessary to bring the stipends of the incumbents up to the by no means excessive figure of £200 per annum. It seems to me, and to many other incumbents to whom I have spoken on the subject, that the attempt to raise a huge sum of money in order to pay another Bishop £4,000 a year, while many of the hard-working parochial clergy are lacking even the necessaries of life, and are totally without the means of educating their children and making provision for old age and sickness, is not only ludicrous but altogether out of place and wrong. I cannot wish the attempt success. I am at all times reluctant to differ with my Bishop on any point, as I have always received from him the utmost kindness and consideration; but I feel so strongly on this question that I have written to the secretary of the New Diocese Fund to say that until the Church wakes up to remove this gross and crying scandal, I decline to contribute a single sixpence, or to ask my congregation to contribute. You may make what use you please of this letter."
Well, that is a very strong and reasonable letter, but when you look at the return of the incomes of the clergy of the diocese of Rochester, you will find some with an income of only £72 a year, and that twenty-four have only an average of £200 a year.
But my main objection to this Bill is not that it proposes to endow a Bishopric with £4,000 per annum, while nothing is being done to raise the salaries of the working clergy; it is that the Bill proposes to add another member to the Bench of Bishops, the great majority of which regard with an indulgent eye the Romanising practices of certain clergy in the Church, while

1289
they look with a very severe eye upon evangelical clergymen who desire to conduct the services of the Church according to the reformed Protestant faith. I would ask what practical and effectual effort has been made by the Bishops to put down illegal practices in the Church, and to restore order within the Church, since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago. I should like to see the Bishops condemn the irregularities which are carried on, and which they know to be wrong. I have here a report of the services held on Good Friday last, 28th March, at the church of All Hallows, Southwark—
" A visit was paid to the church at 10.20 on Good Friday morning, when the reserved Sacrament was being carried from the Lady Chapel Altar Tabernacle to the Tabernacle on the High Altar. There were a few worshippers in the church, about a dozen, and these fell on their knees as the priest, vested in surplice and cassock, and accompanied by an acolyte, carried the Pyx containing the Blessed Sacrament and deposited it in the High Altar Tabernacle, beside which a red light was then placed. Shortly after this the choir came in with the Vicar, and took their places; and then the celebrant, one of the curates, entered, accompanied by a server in black cassock. The priest was vested in a large black cape. Distributed throughout the church was a form of the special prayers which were to be used. These were marked 'Not to be taken away'; but as I had both a Missal and a Roman Catholic 'Holy, Holy Week-Book' with me, I was able to compare the special prayers for this service in them with those used by the priest at All Hallows. The differences in most of the prayers were of the slightest possible kind, and were probably due merely to the differences in translation."
Well, I could go on and read the whole of this report, but I need only say that there seems to have been very little difference in the services in this church from those of a Roman Catholic church. What I ask is, why do not the Bishops stop such practices? "The Tourists' Church Guide," a handbook published by the English Church Union, contains lists of churches, with details as to the ritual observed in certain churches in the country. The last edition was published last year, and the previous edition in 1898. An examination of the two editions was published in the Record newspaper of October 18th, 1901, and the result was as follows—
"In 1898 incense was used in 289 churches; in 1901, 'on certain occasions,' 269—a
1290
decrease of twenty. In 1898 illegal vestments were used in 1,528 churches; and in 1901, 1,637—an increase of 109."
Now, I find that in the diocese of Rochester incense has been used in one church since 1899, while illegal vestments have been abolished in one church, but introduced into four. Why does not the Bishop of Rochester put down these illegal practices in the Church and restore order within the Church? Since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago, things have remained exactly the same; in fact, if anything they are worse, and in the circumstances I feel that I am fully justified in opposing any increase to the Bench of Bishops until something is done by His Majesty's Government to restore order within the Church.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to second the Amendment. Avery grave situation exists in the Church of England at the present moment. A concentrated effort is being made on the part of a considerable section of the clergy to revolutionise the Church, to destroy the character it assumed at the time of the Reformation, and to bring it closer to the Church of Rome. It is a movement to sacerdotalise the Church of England, and to substitute clerical government for the law of the land in Church matters. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill likened it to an attempt to bring another policeman into the Church; but when the present police fraternise with the rioters, and not only strive to screen them from justice but encourage them in their malpractices, I fail to see the advantage of having an additional policeman when the chances are that he will be of the same character as those who have gone before. The head and front of the offending of the ritualistic party is that they are seeking to introduce into the Church of England that which my friends and myself are determined at any cost not to have—viz., the Mass and the Confessional. That is what we have to face. This doctrine of the Mass, which the Articles of our Church condemn in the most emphatic manner, is, by these Gentlemen, being brought into our Church again in

1291
the most unblushing manner. They have High Mass, Low Mass, Red Mass, Black Mass, and all the other varieties of Mass which are to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. They bring this about by converting the Communion Service of the Church of England into a Mass. The late Bishop of London uttered this remarkable statement on February 23rd, 1900—
"The object of the Church of England at the Reformation was to turn the Mass into a Communion."
That is quite true. But the object of these gentlemen is to turn the Communion into a Mass. We are all familiar with the rubric, which says that there shall be no Communion except four, or three at the least, communicate with the priest. That is one of the safeguards with which the Church of England has fenced round this doctrine of the Holy Communion. But there are hundreds of churches at the present day in which the Holy Communion is celebrated without the necessary number of communicants, and even sometimes without any communicants at all. On a visitation of London Churches, between the 31st of March and the 7th of May, 1900, it was found that out of eighty-three, Holy Communion was celebrated in fifty without the minimum number of communicants, and in twenty-five the priest was the only communicant. I have also another Return of visitations between August 1901, and January 1902, which shows that out of fifty churches in London and its neighbourhood, Holy Communion was celebrated in thirty-five without the minimum number of communicants, and in twenty-four the priest was the only communicant. When I brought this matter forward last year in the form of the Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman remarked that he hoped it was not a fact. But it is a fact. Every effort is made in the ritualistic churches to induce the congregation to communicate. The people are instructed to attend Holy Communion in the morning, and not to be present at the mid-day service, which is regarded as a different kind of service altogether.
There is one way in which, I venture to state to the House, a large number of clergymen are breaking the law in the most unmistakable manner. I do not wish to impute motives, but for some reason or other the bishops are
1292
content to leave these gentlemen alone, and not interfere with them. That is wrong. We have a right to demand that the service of the Church should be performed in accordance with the law of the Church. This beautiful service, of which we are so proud, is taken by these gentlemen and mutilated, portions being left out and interpolations put in, with the result that it presents an entirely different complexion to that which its compilers intended it to have. In some churches, I hope not many, we find that the Prayer Book is not the basis of the service, but the Roman Missal. The priests have before them prayers from the Missal on cards placed on the Communion table, and they themselves use these prayers in private and encourage their congregations to also use them in private. The Communion Service, or what is left of it, is simply dovetailed in. I do not know anything more aggravating than such conduct. Then as to children's Eucharists, I ventured to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury on that subject, and he replied—
"If this means, as I suppose it does, the presence of children during the Communion service, it seems to me to be a very undesirable practice, but it cannot be described as unlawful."
I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is not the service of the Holy Communion, it is a service without communicants, in which the Prayer Book is not used. Moreover, other books are put into the hands of the children. I have here a book written by a clergyman of the Church of England entitled "Hosanna: A Mass Book for Children," in which this service is called the Holy Mass. Then, again, the doctrine of transubstantiation is taught to children in the most clear manner, although it is condemned by the Church of England in the strongest terms. I do not know how to describe this conduct. I do not wish to use improper words, but I know that if a layman were guilty of similar conduct he would be dealt with. At the present day the sacerdotal party in the Church of England is moving heaven and earth to gain the rising generation, and although I voted for the Education Bill last night, I maintain we must be very careful, if we are going to commit, for an unlimited period, the teaching of our children to

1293
the clergy, to provide safeguards which will prevent the minds of the children being contaminated and corrupted by the section of the clergy who are unfaithful to the the law of the Church. Another malpractice is the burning of incense. I wish to be perfectly straightforward, and I think the bishops have done something, not to stop, but to lessen the use of incense in the churches. I recognise that they have tried sincerely to put that down, though at the same time I am afraid their efforts have been attended with very little effect. In the return to which I have already referred, I find that of the churches visited, incense was used ceremonially in twenty-five, and other than ceremonially in five. Incense was being burned between the morning service and the service of the Holy Communion, although it has been distinctly laid down that that is contrary to the law. I read lately about a Church Crafts Exhibition having been opened in London, but we need not go to that Exhibition for Church craft. Then, as to confession, which I hope will never be brought back to our Church, the First Lord of the Treasury said he strongly deprecated the practice and hoped it did not obtain to any large extent. The very next week a clergyman wrote, stating that in St. Peters, London Docks, there were 3,057 confessions in 1900, and there is no doubt that the practice is largely increasing in our midst.
I think I have proved to the House, if proof were needed, that there is widespread disorder in the Church of England at the present time. What have the Bishops done to put it down? They have endeavoured to restrain it, but it would be more correct to say that, by their conduct, they have acquiesced and encouraged it. Take the case of the Episcopal veto. When this veto was first given under the Public Worship Regulation Act the Archbishop of Canterbury expressly stated that the veto was only to be used for the purpose of preventing frivolous actions. Having got this power, the Bishop, however, after a short time, began to use it in a wholesale manner. Of twenty-three representations made under the Public Worship Regulation Act, no less than seventeen were vetoed by the Bishops, and then it was recognised that it was impossible to bring any action, and the attempt was given up. What happened a year or two ago! Colonel Porcelli, a member of the Church of
1294
England, made complaints in respect of ritualistic practices in five London Churches, but they were vetoed by the late Bishop of London and the present Bishop of Rochester. They were brought under the Church Discipline Act of 1840, which provides that anyone may make a complaint. The Church of England is the National Church; it is not the church of a section, and if there is disease in one part of it it will extend throughout its entire system. On what grounds were these complaints vetoed. It was a very remarkable ground. It was that the Public Worship Regulation Act required that they should be made by a parishioner, but the complaints were not brought under that Act but under the Public Worship Regulation Act. The Public Worship Regulation Act had already been nullified by the Bishops, but was revived for the occasion, and that is the only use it is.
In addition, the Bishops have paid very little attention to the representations made to them. I will give the House two instances of the manner in which the Bishops have dealt with complaints. On the 2nd of May, 1901, Lord Wimborne drew the attention of the Bishop of Salisbury to certain illegalities in two churches in his diocese, in one of which the clergyman was the sole communicant, and in the other a prayer book other than the Prayer Book of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been placed in the hands of the children. How did the Bishop act? He asked Lord Wimborne to produce the evidence of the particular persons who had seen these practices. Lord Wimborne declined, but said that he had made himself responsible for the course which had been taken. He was the leading man in the Diocese, and he was entitled to make these complaints on the evidence of persons for whom he undertook responsibility. If their names were given, they would have been subjected to persecution, and therefore Lord Wimborne declined to communicate them. Here is another case. There is a parish called Carshalton in the Diocese of Rochester, where there has been trouble lately on account of ritualistic practices. A meeting of the parishioners was held, and a list was

1295
drawn up of what they considered to be the illegal practices in their church, and they handed it to churchwardens with a request to submit it to the Bishop. Although I strongly deprecate disturbance in church, yet if people obtain no redress from the Bishops, if the Law Courts are shut against them as long as human nature is what it is, it cannot be a matter for surprise that public agitation sometimes takes an improper form. I do not approve of the conduct of a man who is lawless in a church, but what about the man who is lawless in the pulpit. The man who is lawless in a pew is brought before the magistrates, and, although he may have been animated by the highest motives, he is convicted as a brawler; but there is no remedy against the man who is lawless in the pulpit. Let us have justice all round, and while I cannot approve of disorder in a church, I yet regard it as a symptom of a very grave disease. The Bishop of Rochester refused to do anything, and then a parishioner wrote, stating that he had resided in the parish for many years, that he had attended the parish church, and that he wished to know whether the illegal practices were to be permitted to continue. The Bishop replied as follows—
"And now the Vicar's absence from health, and the uncertainty of his tenure, make it impossible for some time to come to do otherwise than let things go quietly on as they are, and have been for years."
That was the attitude that was taken up by the Bishop. Since then that particular vicar has retired, and a new vicar has been appointed who is a member of the English Church Union. There is another point I would wish to mention with reference to the patronage of the Bishops. They have encouraged these practices by preferring clergymen who are members of societies like the English Church Union, a society which was constituted to romanise the Church of England. During 1901 I find that 164 members of the English Church Union, 65 of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and 14 of the Holy Cross were appointed by the Bishops. We all know what these societies are. Perhaps I might remind the House what a good thing an English Church Union has been to the Roman
1296
Catholic Church. Up to the present, 88 of its members have seceded to Rome.
I put these considerations before the House as the grounds on which I second this Resolution. May I respectfully say to the House that Protestant sentiment in this country is not dead. But if this ritualistic movement goes on unchecked, and if the youth of the country are placed under the control of the clergy without proper safeguards, then, I venture to think, that the time will come, perhaps before many generations, when the Protestant sentiment of this country will be extinct, and with its extinction will disappear also that love of civil and religious liberty, and that combination of order and respect for authority, which are so deeply the characteristics of our race. I believe, however, that the time will very shortly come when the indignation of the people of this country, more particularly of the working classes—and I speak as one who knows them—will rise to such an extent that it will overflow and sweep away, not only these abuses, but all those who are endeavouring to protect them. I would, therefore, appeal to the House by their Votes to show that they are prepared to do something to cheek this growing evil. We have had a great many fair speeches, but fair speeches and professions of Protestantism will not go down any longer. The people of this country look to acts, not words, and I, therefore, ask the House on this occasion, perhaps the only occasion that may offer during the present session, to show that they value the interests of the Church of England as a whole more than the interests of any particular diocese, and that they are prepared to do something to vindicate the law and to maintain the Protestantism of our National Church.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in view of the continuance in the Established Church of England and Wales of grave and widespread disorders, which the Archbishops and Bishops have failed to restrain, this House declines to assent to any revival of the provisions of the Bishopric Act of 1878 until satisfactory assurances are obtained that the Archbishops and Bishops will enforce a reasonable conformity by the clergy to the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and the Law as determined by the Courts which have statutory jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.'"—(Mr. Brand.)
(5.23.) Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 168.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Flower, Ernest

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Forster, Henry William

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Anstruther, H. T.

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

O'Malley, William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Gunter, Sir Robert

Parker, Gilbert

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

Banbury, Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bartley, George C. T.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Plummer, Walter R.

Bignold, Arthur

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bill, Charles

Henderson, Alexander

Pym, C. Guy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rankin, Sir James

Boland, John

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hogg, Lindsay

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bull, William James

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Renwick, George

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Joyce, Michael

Robson, William Snowdon

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kimber, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Knowles, Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chapman, Edward

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Clancy, John Joseph

Lawson, John Grant

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tennant, Harold John

Cogan, Denis J.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thornton, Percy M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Crean, Eugene

Macdona, John Cumming

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Cust, Henry John C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Dairymple, Sir Charles

M'Govern, T.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Delany, William

Majendie, James A. H.

Webb, Colonel William George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Malcolm, Ian

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

Doogan, P. C.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Duke, Henry Edward

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Milvain, Thomas

Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Morrell, George Herbert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Field, William

Mount, William Arthur

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Colonel Stopford - Sack-Ville and Mr. Causton.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Nicol, Donald Ninian

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Coddington, Sir William

Asher, Alexander

Black, Alexander William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brigg, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Austin, Sir John

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cremer, William Randal

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crombie, John William

Barlow, John Emmott

Caldwell, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Charrington, Spencer

Denny, Colonel

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Randles, John S.

Dillon, John

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dunn, Sir William

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roche, John

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Rutherford, John

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Fadden, Edward

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kean, John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Soares, Ernest J.

Gilhooly, James

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Spear, John Ward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Grant, Corrie

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Sullivan, Donal

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murphy, John

Wallace, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Norman, Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Higginbottom, S. W.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Hoult, Joseph

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Paulton, James Mellor

Joicey, Sir James

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swansea

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Charles M'Arthur and Mr. Brand.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Price, Robert John

Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he objected, because he had not seen the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member in charge of it would explain it.
MR. BEYNMOR JONESsaid it was a Bill which was universally agreed to. It was brought in with the assent of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies on the other side, and at the request of the University of Wales. It proposed to place the Welsh University on the same basis as other provincial universities, and there would be ample opportunity for discussing it on its subsequent stages.

LIGHTING OF PUBLIC CLOCKS (LONDON) BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Bill be read a second time."
Objection being taken.
MR. WHITMOREsaid he would appeal to the hon. Member not to persist in his opposition. The Bill would enable Metropolitan Borough Councils to light public clocks at a reasonable cost. That power was possessed by the old vestries, but the Borough Councils found that they could not incur the expense without being surcharged.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock till Monday next.

EARL OF LEITRIM.
Petition of Charles, Earl of Leitrim, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

SAT FIRST.
The Viscount Hill sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Clements (Earl Leitrim) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with—
Barrow Hæmatite Steel Company, limited (Petition for Bill).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.
Birkenhead Corporation.
Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway (Vesting).
Caledonian Railway.
Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways.
Dartford Improvement.
North British Railway (General Powers).
North British Railway (Steam Vessels).
Salford Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  BARROW HÆMATTTE STEEL COMPANY, LIMITED (PETITION FOR BILL).
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
SOUTH - EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CATERHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 24th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
CITY AND CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
SOUTH SHIELDS, SUNDERLAND, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That it is inexpedient to proceed further with this Bill.
RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LEYLAND AND FARINGTON GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS BILL [H.L.]
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL,
  CLEETHORPES IMPROVEMENT BILL,

    HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL,
    HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES) BILL,
    KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT BILL,
    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL,
    NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, ETC.) BILL,
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL,
    SCARBOROURGH TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.],
    LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit on Monday next until two o'clock.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],

    MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.],
    SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit on Monday next until two o'clock.

ROSSENDALE VALLEYS TRAMWAYS 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 18th of March last, and 1st instant, discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 72.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland; with Appendix, 1901–1902.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
Forty-fifth report for the year 1901, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools: Part I. List of Schools and Detailed Reports.

TRADE.
Annual statement of trade of United Kingdom, for 1901: Volume I.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made; Bill I to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended (No. 71.)
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a(according to order), and passed.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 70.)

THE WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it would be convenient to the House if the noble Marquess would tell us what is the proposed arrangements with regard to the adjournment at Whitsuntide.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very glad to be frank with the noble Lord on the subject, but the truth is that I cannot myself find out whether there is anything for this House to do next week. Unfortunately, owing

1225
to the very peculiar course business has taken in the House of Commons—the whole of their energies being devoted to matters which concern them and do not concern us—it is not very easy to say what will be the most convenient day for the adjournment. I have just heard, however, on the highest authority, that to adjourn on Tuesday, which I should have proposed, would not be very convenient. If, therefore, the noble Lord has no objection, we will say Friday, and from then adjourn until the Monday fortnight.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.