Sitting of 18 February 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND).
  Petitions for legislation: from Banff; Ordiquhill; and, Rothiemay; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for prohibition: from Rugby; and Basingstoke; to lie upon the Table.
  VARATHANWNTHAJEE, RY VIJAGA, SAHIB.
  Petition of Ry Vijaga Varathanwnthajee, Sahib, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Address for "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number and, as far as possible, the number in each class of electors on the register now in force, and also showing the population and inhabited houses in each constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 70, of Session 1902)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the urban district of Whitley and Monkseaton in the county of Northumberland (North Shields, Tynemouth, and District Light Railways (Extension)
  Order, 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Gloucester, in the borough of Cheltenham, and in the urban district of Charlton Kings (Cheltenham and District Light Railway (Extensions No. 2) Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Wilts, form Ambesbury to Bulford (Amesbury and Military Camp Light Railway (Bulford Extension) Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Cornwall, from Padstow to Tregurrian, in the parish of St. Mawgan (Padstow, Bedruthan, and Mawgan Light Railway Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the municipal borough of Poole and the urban district of Branksome, in the county or Dorset (Poole and District Light Railway (Extension) Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Essex, in the urban districts of Walthamstow, Leyton, and Chingford (Walthamstow and District Light Railway Order, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1902, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Amended General Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, dated 9th February, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copies presented, of two General Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland, dated 13th May, 1902, and 17th December, 1902, respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presentd, of Report by the Chariman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Fife Electric Power Company Order, the Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw Tramways Order, the Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Order, the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Order, and the Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order [by Act]; to ie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 16.]

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of Five Orders, numbered respectively 6594, 6608, 6612, 6615, and 6616, relating to the Landing of Foreign Animals in Great Britain [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR OFFICE).
  Copy of Seventh Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the
  Office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Charles Curtis Craig, esquire, for the County of Antrim (South Antrim Division).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postmen in the E. C. District—Delay in the Supply of Uniforms—Compensation for wear and tear of private clothes.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster General whether he will explain why a number of postmen employed in the E. C. District Office have been only recently supplied with their uniforms after a delay of from one to six months, during which time they served the Department wearing their private clothes; and whether it is his intention to compensate these men for the loss of an emolument recognised by the Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am making inquiry into the matter to which the hon. Member refers, and will let him know the result.

  Report of Forestry Committee Oppor tunity for Discussion.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if it is intended to take any steps to carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee on Forestry before the House of Commons has the opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the suitability of the centres recommended.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The evidence has not yet been printed, and I am, therefore, not in a position to decide as to the urgency of any particular recommendation. But I will, of course, take care that the right hon. Baronet, or others interested, have a proper opportunity of expressing their views.

  Processions of Unemployed—Obstruction to Shopkeepers.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the interference with business caused to shopkeepers in London by the recent daily processions of unemployed through the streets for the purpose of collecting money; and whether it is proposed to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary AkersDouglas.) I have received representations to the effect indicated, and I have given anxious attention to these and all other considerations affecting the question. I have been in constant consultation with the Commissioner of Police, who has been acting, with my approval, to the full extent, as I am advised, of his powers. One of his chief objects has been to minimise the hindrance to traffic caused by the processions; and I believe that as much has been done to prevent undue inconvenience to the public as is possible in the existing state of the law. Whether the law should be altered and additional powers be given to the police is a matter for serious consideration; and I hope that the Royal Commission on London Traffic may throw light upon the subject, which is one of considerable difficulty.

  Vivisection Return—Date of Publication.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Returns of Experiments on Living Animals for the year 1902 will be produced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary AkersDoughas.) The Returns from licensed persons are now being collected; and every effort will be made to get them in, and to produce the Paper without delay. But I cannot at present give a definite date for its publication.

  Alien Immigration Commission—Report.
  MR. FORDERIDLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now inform the House whether the Royal Commission on Pauper Alien Immigration is likely to report in time to allow of legislation being introduced this session.
  138
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am unable to say when the Royal Commission is likely to make its Report. The Board of Trade have no control over the proceedings of the Commission.

  Royal Engineers—Promotion of Officers.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the rate of promotion for officers in the corps of Royal Engineers; whether he is aware that by the Gradation List of January last it appears that senior majors, captains and lieutenants, and second lieutenants in the Engineers are passed over respectively by 100, 120, 700, and 1,600 officers originally their juniors; and whether, seeing that in a mixed force of different arms a Royal Engineer officer who might be the best fitted to command would have to act under an officer of less service, it is proposed to take steps similar to those taken in the Indian Army to deal with this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The question of the promotion of the captains and lieutenants of Royal Engineers has already received my attention. Owing to the war and other causes promotion has been greatly accelerated in other branches of the service, somewhat to the effect stated in the Question, but it must be borne in mind that these causes are abnormal, and reactionary effect may be expected. The matter will, however, be again considered when matters regarding promotion are in a more normal condition.

  South African War Medals—Reasons for awarding to Kaffirs.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many medals have been placed at the disposal of the Commander of the Forces in South Africa for presentation to Kaffirs for active service in the late war; and whether, having regard to the assurances of the War Office authorities that natives took no part in the war, what were the nature of the services rendered by the Kaffirs to whom war medals have been awarded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Non-enlisted men who drew pay from

  139
  military funds were, under the terms of Army Order 94 of 1901, allowed to receive bronze medals, and a supply of 100,000 medals was despatched at Lord Kitchener's request to South Africa. A large number of Kaffirs were employed with the administrative services. Instructions have been given to avoid a wholesale issue of such medals.

  BALLOT FOR BILLS AND MOTIONS.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In moving the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper I do not think any words of explanation are required from me. The new Rule provides two nights in the week on which private Members' Bills may be taken, and I will only remind hon. Members that, in bringing in their Bills, it is not necessary for them now to advance from the bar of the House. A great deal of time may be saved if the new procedure is adopted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot, whether for Bills or for Motions, for Tuesday, 24th February, and Tuesday, 3rd March, and Wednesday, 25th February, and Wednesday 4th March, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on the first or second day of the session, and that a copy of such notices be handed in at the latest during the sitting of the House on the third day of the session.
  That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on the third day on which the House sits, at a convenient time and place to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on the fourth sitting day be taken as soon after twelve o'clock as Mr. Speaker may deem convenient. (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid the House was taking a new departure. Three or four years ago he made some remarks on a similar Motion, showing that though the arrangements for balloting, etc,. at the beginning of
  140
  the year were rather complicated, yet the result at the end of the session was very poor, so far as the number of private Members' Bills receiving the Royal Assent was concerned. How far the alterations would effect an improvement in that respect remained to be seen. They had in the past too often seen the Leader of the House—who should be the conservator and guardian of Standing Orders, moving the suspension of them, and—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises on this Motion, which only deals with the method of taking the ballot.
  MR. ELLISsaid that on the 8th February, 1899,† he raised the question on a similar Motion, but, of course, after the intimation from the Chairman he would not pursue the matter further. He would only express his hope that at the end of the session they would find that the new procedure had helped unofficial Members interested in Private Bills in securing fruition for their eagerness and anxiety to see a certain amount of legislation passed every year irrespective of that initiated by the Government.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERreferred to the inconvenience caused on the previous day by crowds of Members flocking to the Table in order to sign the Notice Paper. Last year Mr. Speaker expressed an opinion that some arrangements should be made to obviate such proceedings by having the work done in a Committee Room, and he would ask the Prime Minister if steps could not be taken to ensure that being done. He trusted that on future occasions their proceedings would not thus be in terrupted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that these arrangements rest with the Speaker, who, I understand, has provided that in future such things as the right hon. Gentleman complains of shall be avoided. With regard to the dates mentioned in the Motion, I have not the smallest hope that the debate on the Address will be concluded by the 24th inst., and it may, therefore, be necessary to bring forward
  † See (4) Debates, lxxi, 181.

  141
  a Motion giving the Government the whole of the time of the House until the debate is concluded.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BALLOT FOR BILLS AND MOTIONS.
  Ordered, That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot, whether for Bills or for Motions, for Tuesday, 24th February, and Tuesday, 3rd March, and Wednesday, 25th February, and Wednesday, 4th March, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on the first or second day of the session, and that a copy of such notices be handed in, at the latest, during the sitting of the House on the third day of the session. That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on the third day on which the House sits, at a convenient time and place, to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on the fourth sitting day be taken as soon after twelve o'clock as Mr. Speaker may deem convenient.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the ballot for the precedence of Bills and Motions would be taken in Committee Room 10, at twelve o'clock tomorrow, and that the presentation of the Bills in the House would take place immediately before the Orders of the Day on Friday next.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question again proposed. — Debate resumed.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It is with profound disappointment I view the fact that there is no promise made in the King's Speech of any intention to attempt to deal this session with the appalling problem of the housing of the working classes. I never have dealt, and do not propose now to deal, with this question in a partisan spirit. I do not forget that twenty years ago the Prime Minister then a private Member—moved a Resolution which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission in whose deliberations the King took part, neither do I forget that the late Prime Minister brought a similar motion before the House of Lords, which also helped in the setting up of the Royal Commission. But I do want to say this, that in my opinion the present Administration has lost a golden opportunity of dealing with this problem. It has been in office for seven years; it has had unparalleled power in both Houses of Parliament, and certainly it might, without proposing any great heroic measure, have, year by year and step by step, done something to mitigate the evils arising from the lack of proper housing accommodation. I go back to the General Election of 1895. There was no war issue before the people at that time, and the present Administration unquestionably secured office by their bold and comprehensive scheme of social reform. What lias resulted from that programme? In 1899 the Colonial Secretary took over a private Member's Bill to enable local authorities to lend money to working people with which to buy their own houses. No doubt the Government expected a great deal from that measure, for on the Motion for the Third Reading on 4th July, 1899, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said—
  " I do not like to be optimistic so I will content myself by saying that here is a Bill which carries out one of the most important pledges the Unionist Party gave at the General Election. We believe that it will be successful and that it will be a great advantage to the working-class population."
  But what has been the result? After four years administration we were told by the President of the Local Government Board in the fall of last year that of all the millions of people in England
  † See (4) Debates, lxxiii, 1478.

  143
  and Wales there had been the microscopic number of forty-four individual loans under the Act. There had been one application in London from the Hammersmith County Council, but it was of such a character that the authority did not think it would be legal to acquiesce in it, and the individual eventually got his loan through a private agency. That is the sole result of the measure from which such big things were expected. But that is not all. In 1900 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford passed a Bill through the House enabling municipalities to purchase land outside their own areas for the purposes of housing. There has not been much result from that Act. The London County Council have undoubtedly taken up two great schemes by means of its agency, but I am very doubtful indeed whether the Government can show any substantial participation in the great privileges which were to spring from it, in any part of the country except London. I have made careful inquiry and I cannot find that that Act has been anything more than rather barren of results. It should have been accompanied by provisions for the cheap and effective transit of the people from their places of occupation to the new municipal dwellings which were to be set up five, ten, or even fifteen miles away. And that exhausts the record of their harvest of five years of unparalleled power.
  Then came the General Election of 1900. That was obscured by the war issue. But it is remarkable, even under these circumstances, the extent to which the housing of the working classes was made a prominent question in the election speeches and addresses of Members of all parties at that time; and there are now forty Members on the other side of the House who not only made it a matter of speechifying, but put into their election addresses a specific promise that they would treat it as and urgent and pressing question. No doubt, when we come to a division, we shall find them giving effect to that pledge. In January, 1901, the then Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, received a deputation of temperance reformers asking him to bring forward temperance legislation. To that the right hon. Gentleman gave and extremely commonsense reply. He said that many things
  144
  might be done, apart from direct temperance legislation, which would do more for temperance than direct licensing reform. The right hon. Gentleman addes—
  "They wanted more comfort for the people in their own houses; and those of them who knew something about the squalid character of the houses in which large masses of our people dwelt, could not wonder if the comfort which they could not get in their squalid dwellings, they endeavoured to find elsewhere in brighter surroundings. He believed the public conscience was aroused to a degree never before reached by this question of the housing of our people, and, to his mind, it was of immensely more importance that this evil should be remedied than even that the number of public house licences should be reduced."
  I remember the President of the Local government Board received a deputation from the Workmen's National Housing Council in February, 1901, urging housing reform, and at the very outset of his reply the right hon. Gentleman made this statement—
  "I admit that the question of the housing of the working classes is more pressing and more important than most of the social problems with which we are confronted."
  That was two years ago, and I should like to know what has since been done to carry out the pledges which that statement seems to imply.
  Certainly the whole of the session of 1901 was absolutely barren, and nothing was done in that year with regard to this problem. What about 1902? There was no promise in the King's Speech of any endeavour to deal with the matter, and I therefore ventured to move and Amendment, with the result, in the first place, that the Select Committee which had been appointed the year before, but had not been called together, was immediately summoned; and, in the second place, and independent Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed. I very well remember that the impression left on my mind at that time was that it was the sincere and honest purpose of the Government to deal promptly with the recommendations of those two Select Committees when they came into their hands. The first Select Committee dealt with the advisability of extending the period for the repayment of housing loans contracted by municipal authorities. The present limit is sixty years, and there was a general agreement that it might be extended to eighty. The Member for South Islington, indeed

  145
  moved in the Select Committee that it should be 100 years, and he was only beaten by eight votes to six. Still, as I said, there was general agreement that the term might be made eighty years, as such an extension of the period of repayment would enable local authorities by a few pence per week to reduce the rents they are compelled to charge for these tenements. I desire to know why we cannot this session have legislation to carry out that recommendation. There were other matters in the Report of the Committee to which I am referring, but they were of an administrative character, and I am prepared to hear from the President of the Local Government Board that they are receiving the close attention of, and will be dealt with, by his Department. The Second Select Committee was a Joint Committee of both Houses, and of it I had the honour to be a member. It was called together to consider whether the Standing Orders of this House incorporated in Model Clauses, in Railway Bills and Provisional Orders imposing rehousing obligations on companies and authorities, might not be stiffened and rendered less easy of evasion. The evidence showed that there had been evasions, and we therefore proposed a series of clanses making them less possible. Why cannot we this year have the Orders of this House stiffened, if necessary by legislation on the lines suggested by this Select Committee? These are two extremely moderate requests, but even if granted they would barely touch the fringe of this question of the housing of the working classes.
  There are many more things which require to be done, and to be done promptly. We want a drastic reform of the Land Laws. I cannot ask the Government to undertake that this session. I wish it success in its endeavour to solve the Irish land problem, and I hope that, when it has done that, we may be able to apply certain precedents thus created to other parts of the United Kingdom. But this question of the land, and of urban land in particular, on account of the enormous cost of it, is the main obstacle in the way of municipal housing in great cities. Take the familiar case of the Boundary Street area. It was an area described as filthy and verminous. This was the official description of it given by the London County Council:
  146
  "In a majority of instances the houses were so constructed that the ground floors were from twelve to eighteen inches below the street level. No house possessed such a thing as a front door, no repairs were ever done, what backyards there ever were had been covered in to make new tenements, and thus we have a bare idea of the state of things which caused the death rate in that particular neighbourhood to mount up to over forty per 1000 in 1889, although at the same time the death rate at Hampstead was only thirteen per 1000 and at St. George's, Hanover Square, fifteen per 1000."
  I remember the First Lord said on that occasion that if every slum owner was hung on his own door lintel he would not shed many tears over them. But nothing of that kind happened to these slum owners. Instead of that they got £333,000 from the London County Council, or £300 for every family that was about to be re housed by the County Council, merely for clearing the property. I confess I have never been able to understand why the municipal authorities should be compelled at once to repay the loan for the land. The land is not likely to diminish in value, and why should not the payment for it be allowed to stand over until the cost of the building has been paid off. That, at any rate, would mitigate the rent which has at present to be fixed so high as to make the new tenements prohibitive for the very class of people for whom they are intended. I have another proposition not of a very drastic character. I do not know why local authorities should not be permitted to borrow cheap money for the purposes of this Act. Why cannot they borrow at 2½ per cent? The Treasury could make up the difference between that and the current rate of interest. Still, as that may be deemed to be a big order I will not press it on the Government.
  I think the Board of Trade does not do its duty in compelling the great railway companies to carry out the obligations into which they entered under the Act of 1883. They then obtained a remission of the Passenger Duty, and I know that the companies having termini in London have received many millions of money in order that they should run a sufficient number of workmen's trains. Now the greatest diversity is permitted by the Board of Trade in regard to that Cheap Trains Act. The Great Eastern Railway runs over 100 workmen's trains into its London ter-

  147
  minus daily, whereas the Midland only runs five a day, and one result of the diversity of practice is that you create a new housing problem along the line which runs the greatest number of trains. Again, diversity obtains with regard to the cost of workmen's tickets. The Great Eastern take a man ten miles each way daily for a charge of 1s. per week: for a like distance on the Great Western the charge is 4s. weekly, a big sum if you add it to the rent which a man has to pay out of his small wages. I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should brisk up the companies and make them carry out their obligations. I am convinced that we want a new Cheap Trains Act altogether. The present Act is twenty years old. Today hundreds of thousands of young people, especially girls, come into London to work. They do not commence their duties till 9 or 9.30, but if they desire to take advantage of the cheap train service they have to reach St. Pancras by twelve minutes past seven in the morning, or Liverpool Street before eight o'clock. That means early rising on their part, and then hanging about the railway stations until they can go to work. So grave is this scandal that a number of clergymen in the neighbourhood of St. Pancras have opened their churches in order to provide these unhappy people with warm shelter during the time they are compelled to hand about. We want, then, a Cheap Trains Act brought up-to-date. I daresay the answer will be that the railway companies cannot do more than they are doing now. My rejoinder to that is that they should be as enterprising as they possibly can in meeting the needs of the working classes; otherwise they will be left high and dry by the electrification of municipal tram ways, and by the extension of all forms of locomotion by municipalities. It is to their own interest to give a more generous interpretation to the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act.
  I have not said a single word about the precise nature of this problem, and I do not know that I need do so. Hon. Members must have often seen the census returns, which show the extent to which these unhappy people are compelled to live in overcrowded dwellings. They are of all
  148
  ages and of all sexes, and very frequently eight, ten, and even twelve, have to live in one room. Do hon. Gentlemen think that chastity of thought and of action are possible under such circumstances? The returns of the Medical Officers of Health show in a most relentless way how disease and death, with the fiendish accompaniment of crime, mark this overcrowding, and some of us must be aware, from experience in our own constituencies, that drunkenness and immorality are equally concomitants of this deplorable evil of overcrowding. At a meeting at Bermondsey Town Hall recently the Rev. Henry Pitt, the Vicar of St. Mary's, Southwark, gave some startling figures with regard to over crowding in that parish. He stated that there were 9,896 tenements of only one room; while 12,480 consisted of only two rooms. Then he went on to point out that in each of two of the one room tenements ten persons lived; in one, nine; in one, eight; in each of ten, seven; in each of thirty-five, six; in each of 201, five; and in each of 727, four. In the parish of St. Mary's, in the old Kent Road, in one particular area there lived under these circumstances at the time 1,200 people, and it was pitiable to think of human beings thus herded together. Was it any wonder that with their starvation rate of wages, and with the exorbitant rents for miserable accommodation men and women were driven into the public-house? The rev. gentleman on that occasion made a significant statement. He said that the patience of the poor often surprised him, and that the absence of serious crime and disorder was most honourable to those whose social life was nothing less than slavery. The rev. gentleman spoke of this state of things as being a menace to our Imperial greatness. I say it is even more than that. It is a challenge to our claim to be considered a Christian community.
  The Colonial Secretary recently made a speech at Kimberley, in which he referred, in very expansive tones, to the glories and privileges of our Empire. He said—
  "You are invited to share the privileges and glories of Empire. The Empire is a great and priceless possession which we cannot weigh in the balances. It is the greatest in extent that

  149
  the world has ever known before. What a heritage! You are co-heirs with us in its privileges and glories."
  Now there are within a four-mile radius of this particular spot, in which we are assembled, tens of thousands, of our fellow citizens to whom this talk of the privileges, glories, and priceless possessions of Empire is a hideous mockery. I say this in no partisan spirit. They sit in a never-lifting shadow of misery and distress, and at the same time we sit in an Imperial fool's paradise, lulled into indifference by their stolid and uncomplaining patience. So long as these things remain as they are our Imperial greatness cannot be stable, and it will be the business of many of us, on this side of the House as well as on the other, to insist, unceasingly and unremittingly, on some effort being made to deal with this terrible problem, which is the canker of our Imperial well-being. It is on that ground that I move my Amendment.
  *MR. KEARLEY: I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. friend for bringing this important question forward. We are sorry that it should be necessary to move this Amendment to the Address. But it refers to a subject which, I think, may be fairly described as the most important social question of the day, and we are driven to take this step because the Government, in spite of the fact that they profess to have the subject deeply at heart, give no sign of taking any action to provide for some amelioration of this evil of over-crowding. In order to solve the problem it is necessary that we should have legislation of far-reaching and drastic kind. My hon. friend has thrown out some hope that some measure may be produced based on the Reports of the two Committees which sat last year. But while I agree with him that we should be thankful for anything we can get, I am bound to say that if any political Party in this country is desirous of curing the evil it will not be able to do it by piece-meal legislation. We have been passing Acts of Parliament in connection with the subject for the last fifty years, and if any evidence is wanted of the inefficiency of those Acts, we have only to point to the present deplorable condition of the
  150
  question. My hon. friend has given the House some figures, and it would be easy for anybody to produce the most harrowing accounts of the present state of affairs. Undoubtedly it is generally accepted by the country at large that this question is both urgent and pressing. Within the last two or three years we have had instalments of legislation intended to deal with this matter. One has been referred to by my hon. friend. It was the Act of Parliament passed purporting to give working men and opportunity of buying their dwellings. I know from the circumstances of my own constituency, where there is a peculiar desire for residences of this description, that this Act has not been of the slightest benefit whatsoever. There has not been one single application under it, because it is well known that it would be useless. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, then President of the Local Government Board, passed through this House an Act which gave a local authority power to acquire land outside its own area. At that time we urged the necessity of extending the Cheap Trains Act, so that proper facilities might be provided for people to get to and from their dwellings. But that extension was denied to us, and consequently the Act has proved to be a dead letter.
  I propose now in a few words to endeavour to put before the House what are the problems to be faced. I think I may say there are three of them. In the first place there is the great question of overcrowded area sin urban centres. An overcrowded area is necessarily an insanitary area, and I suppose that existing Acts of Parliament, if properly enforced, ought to be able to deal effectively with such areas. But they are not, and I will tell the House the reason for it. First there is the question of compensation to the owners of the insanitary areas. It should be a dangerous possession for a man to either hold or to be possessed of an insanitary area, but, in reality, the more insanitary it is the greater is the amount of compensation which he obtains. This is the first great block we have to deal with. We want to get rid of the over-crowded areas of this country, and I suggest that we must, by legislative means, impose upon the owners some sort of penalty or punishment so that they will be glad

  151
  enough to get rid of them. At the present time, undoubtedly, and insanitary area comprises a sort of gilt edged security to those who understand how to deal with that sort of investment. Therefore we must give local authorities power to acquire these sites on such terms as will enable them to re-erect healthy homes which can be let at reasonable rents, or else impose upon the owner the responsibility of clearing his own site, and of replacing upon it houses that can be utilised by the present class of tenants. The only way to do that is to base the compensation on the value of the site when re-occupied by buildings suitable for the same class of people as lived on it before that clearance. Of course, this would involve legislation, and I think that my hon. friend is entitled to insist that it is the duty of the Government to provide a remedy for the evils to which he has called attention.
  The next problem is of a rather different character. It is one involving the hoarding of land. Now, this is not merely a London question. It affects other great urban centres, and it applies to districts where there is land in abundance surrounding a town. I will take the case of the constituency which I represent— Devonport. There we have a splendid country surrounding the town. We have thousands of acres available, but, inasmuch as the land is in the possession, practically, of only one owner, the takes advantage of his monopoly to lease it out in retail quantities, and the result is that in that district you have the same hideous over-crowding as prevails in other great centres. The suggestion I would make, in order to compel the landlord to loose his land, is to see that it is taxed as its proper value. At the present moment, the land I am referring to is rated only on it agricultural value, yet the landlord has the power, when it comes into the market, to ask a capital price for it, representing many thousands of pounds per acre. This very landlord, when the Rating Act was passed, received the full benefit of the Act because the land, and worth as such many thousand pounds per acre, was let as agricultural land. Therefore, I say, not only has the overcrowding in the big cities to be dealt with, but also the system whereby men are allowed to hoard land
  152
  and re-lease it in such quantities that an altogether fictitious value is obtained.
  There is a third problem to which I refer, because of the Act passed two years ago giving local authorities power to acquire land outside their own borders. That power is no good at all unless facilities are placed in the hands of local authorities to secure cheap transport from the overcrowded areas to the rural districts. If the Government would only apply themselves to the extension of the Cheap Transport Act, 1883, that point might easily be dealt with.
  Consider for a moment the penalty we as a nation pay for the toleration of this hideous evil. Two-thirds and more of our population is in the towns, and the percentage is increasing, and the death-rate rises in almost exact proportion to the amount of overcrowding, while infant mortality increases in an even greater ratio. Can it be beneficial to the interests of the country that every year we should be rally killing off a large proportion of the population? Then there is the immorality, intemperance, disease, and lunacy—all largely due to overcrowding. If these things are not sufficient to awaken the Government on this question, goodness only knows what will stir them to action. Overcrowding is supposed by some to be the inevitable fate of the very poor and destitute. That really is not the case, as I know of hundreds of instances of honest, respectable, hard-working artisans who are compelled to live in these disgraceful surroundings and circumstances because there is no other accommodation available for them. this is a question that cannot be hung up. The Party opposite, individually and collectively, are pledged to do something. The country will not allow them to burk their responsibility. They may have plenty of legislation on hand, but this is one of the most pressing questions of the day, and it is amazing that no reference whatever should be made to it in the King's Speech. The Government have an unrivalled opportunity, and one such as the Liberals will probably never have. They hold the House of Lords in the hollow of their hand. When they come to deal with this question they will have to make inroads on vested interests, and if we were to attempt that our measure would probably fail to pass

  153
  another place. The Government have not that impediment; they have everything in their favour, and if they sincerely wish to remedy this evil they ought to take advantage of their opportunity. If they fail to deal with the question we should be justified in saying that it is because they fear those vested interests, and that rather than impinge upon them they prefer to tolerate this awful loss of life and health. The real object of the Amendment is to afford the Government the earliest opportunity of stating clearly and frankly where they stand on this most important question. I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question to add the words 'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the greatest hardships are inflicted upon many of your working-class subjects by reason of the lack of proper housing accommodation, and that immediate Parliamentary attention to this evil is one of the most pressing of the necessities of domestic policy.' "—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I think we have reason to complain of the Government in respect of this housing question, in regard not only to the lack of promise of legislation, but also to the administration of the existing law. The Local Government Board does not appear to act sympathetically towards the local authorities or other parties concerned, nor is the experience gained in one quarter utilised in another. Above all, the Government does not seem to realise that the first business in the matter of housing, especially in London, is to ascertain the deficiency of housing accommodation. To get that information no fresh legislation is necessary; it simply requires the existing machinery to be put in motion, either from Whitehall or through the local authorities. Those of us who are doing what we can through private enterprise to meet this great deficiency of accommodation find ourselves bound hand and foot by all sorts of regulations; if we go to the local authority we get the invariable reply that they are equally bound by more or less obsolete regulations; while we are told by the Local Government Board that they have no
  154
  power to interfere with the local authorities so long as they conform to certain rules. The Government, however, appears to have realised in some measure that the building regulations have a very great bearing on the activities of private individuals, because recently a Departmental Committee has been examining into the question. But if the deliberations and decisions of the Joint Committees to which reference has been made are any criterion, I fear we cannot hope for much practical result from these Committees, so far as the Government is concerned, by legislation. I would remind hon. Members that as far as the Committee appointed to deal with the housing of the working classes is concerned, that body did make recommendations. I need not weary the House with details, but I will confine myself to one of its recommendations, namely, that the Committee came to the conclusion that the regulations laid down under the Model Clauses should be established by a public Act of Parliament. I think if His Majesty's
  Ministers thought fit to announce their intention of putting into operation the recommendations of that Committee they would be taking a step in the direction of valuable, because effective, reform relating to the housing problem. I wish to point out, however, that one of the most important questions to be dealt with in London is locomotion, a question which is being dealt with by the Royal Commission on Locomotion. If hon. Members will consider the composition of that body they will see that it is composed of gentlemen most of whom would be admirable witnesses but ought not to be judges because of their connection with vested interests.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! To discuss the composition of the Commission on London Traffic would be out of order on this Motion.
  *MR. CLAUDE HAY: I was merely referring to the fact that locomotion was intimately associated with this question, and I wish to ask in reference to that side of the subject whether my right hon. friend the Home Secretary can give us any information as to how the difficulties between the North-Western Railway and the Home Department stand in respect of

  155
  the housing of the people in London. I should like to join with my hon. friend in pressing upon the Government the necessity for some definite legislation upon these matters. The Government have no doubt had pressed upon them by various associations demands for the institution of a central authority which should co-ordinate all the working of the Housing Acts throughout London, and I agree that if His Majesty's Government were inclined to entertain their request favourably it would be necessary to pass a Bill to authorise the appointment of two or three permanent commissioners. No doubt hon. Members are so familiar with all the advantages which would accrue from the appointment of permanent commissioners that it is not necessary for me to dilate upon them. At present the problem seems to be partially dealt with by the London County Council in the first place, in the second place by the Borough Councils, and in the third place by the Local Government Board, and in respect of private Bills by the Home Office.
  Surely in that state of the law and administration it is absolutely necessary that there should be some strong body which should be permanently able to advise and co-ordinate the various schemes which may be on foot for the treatment of this great national question.
  There is one other respect in which we all desire to see some improvement in the law, and that is as regards the Small Dwellings Act. Hon. Members have been reminded by the hon. Member for Camberwell that practically this Act has been a dead letter, and the reason for this is that the financial arrangements connected with it do not bring it within the range of practical business, or within reach of the persons whom it is intended should be benefited. If the Government were to facilitate the advance of public money upon what undoubtedly is good security on more favourable terms, a great many of those private semi-philanthropic companies would be largely brought into play instead of remaining more or less dormant. At present the sanitary laws are not properly enforced. You have in Lord Shaftesbury's Acts very ample powers within the definition of the law to deal with what are known as common lodging houses, but if you desire to enforce any useful provision which applies to such dwellings, you are practically excluded from putting it into
  156
  force in the houses of the poor who have separate occupation of one or more rooms in what are generally known as tenements. The hon. Member for Battersea is conversant with this part of the subject, and no doubt he will be able to say something which will bring that side of the housing question very vividly to mind of the House. I do most earnestly hope, as a supporter of the Government, that the omission from His Majesty's Speech of any reference to the housing problem does not mean any lack of intention on the part of the Ministry of passing some of those sound practical measures to establish machinery which ought to be in full swing to remedy the terrible evils which are not only saddening to every one of us who cares for the welfare of our country, but which must inflict a lasting injury not only upon the physique, but upon the morals and the greatness of our country.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I wish more particularly to refer to the rural aspect of the housing problem. There is no doubt at all that there are many farm labourers' cottages in Gloucestershire or Wiltshire which are just as insanitary and over crowded as the houses in Camberwell or Devonport, and there are many picturesque villages in the Midlands which could show slums almost as bad as any of those in our great cities. There is no doubt that in the rural districts there are thousands of cases where the cottages are defective in structural repair, and in regard to their sanitary condition, and which are most dangerous to the health of the occupiers. This unquestionably is due to the fact that taking the country as a whole, the number of cottages is insufficient for the population which desires to live in the villages, and the people are compelled to remain in unsuitable houses simply because there are no others. I know of one village with a population of about 430 where there are no fewer than thirty cottages with only one bedroom. In one instance there is a man and his wife and eight children sleeping in one room, and this cottage has never been visited or inspected either by the medical officer or by the sanitary inspector. I have frequently been in cottages in Oxfordshire in which the conditions

  157
  under which the people live are gravely injurious to health, and I have heard the bitterest complaints from those who inhabit them against the conditions under which the people are compelled to live. There was a most careful inquiry made into the rural housing problem by the Royal Commission on Labour. This inquiry covered a large number of districts in all parts of England and Wales, and the reports of the Assistant Commissioners give abundant evidence that the housing problem in the rural districts urgently demands attention.
  A summary of those reports on rural districts was made by Mr. Little, one of the Assistant Commissioners of the Royal Commission, and his report states that "there is abundant evidence to show that a large proportion of the cottages inhabited by labourers are of a lower standard than is required for decency and comfort," and he states that "the agricultural labourer too frequently lives under conditions which, both physically and morally, are unwholesome and offensive." The Royal Commission itself, in its majority report, states that "the chief evil to which it appears possible administrative remedies should be applied, is the defective structure and insanitary condition of the dwellings of agricultural labourers." The Royal Commission on Welsh Land reported with regard to Wales in very similar terms. I quote these to show that these are not imaginary grievances, because after very careful inquiry these authorities have declared that the problem is one which requires the attention of the Government and of this House. The effects of these conditions to the health, happiness, comfort and morality of those who have to live under them cannot fail to be grave, and the defects in our housing system in the villages is in no small degree responsible for the rural depopulation, which we all deplore. It is because the people cannot get comfortable houses in which to live that many of them are tempted to come into the towns where they may be able to secure proper housing accommodation.
  The Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country are now beginning to pass resolutions to the effect that the housing question in country districts is closely connected with the question of rural
  158
  depopulation, and the last meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, of which I have the honour to be a member, also passed a similar resolution. This House would surely be rendering a great service to the country as a whole if it dealt with this side of the rural depopulation question, and so helped to put a check on that migration from the country to the town which is one of the most sinister features of the social life of our country at the present moment. The city may breed active minds, but the country breeds healthy bodies, and if the city breeds wealth, the country breeds men. The nation would not be in a healthy state if it became more and more a people of city dwellers, and if the country people gradually dwindled more and more in their numbers. This question of housing is one of the most important in connection with the rural depopulation question, and if only for that reason it should have the attention of the Government. The question of course arises: What definite, practical remedies can be proposed for dealing with the state of things that exists in a large number of our villages? The remedies may be divided into those which require legislation and those which require administrative action. Legislation is required to enable local authorities to build cottages in places where they are most needed. In Ireland, under the Irish Labourers Acts, there are no fewer than 17,000 authorised to be built by Boards of Guardians, and 15,000 have already been built at the cost of £2,000,000.
  The present Government adopted the policy, and made it their own, to authorise the building of cottages in villages by local authorities. By the Acts of 1890 and 1900 it gave powers to the District Councils to carry out work of this character. The efforts of the Government have not yet been crowned with success, and so far only in two parishes in the whole of England—Ixworth in Suffolk, and Penshurst in Kent—have cottages been built under the Act. These figures come down to the end of 1901, but perhaps the President of the Local Government Board can tell me if any more have been built since then. Only fourteen cottages have been built since 1890, throughout the whole length and breadth of England and Wales, under the Housing of the Working Classes Act in the villages—one cottage to every 1,000 parishes in England and Wales.

  159
  The reason why this Act has been a dead letter is not only financial. It is not only the fact that it is difficult to make cottages pay. I myself built a couple of cottages in Oxfordshire, as an experiment to see whether they could be built on terms that would produce a remunerative return, and I found, as the result of this experiment, that if a cottage is built and has attached to it a quarter of an acre of land, at a cost of about £200, and if the rent is 3s. a week, the investment would pay 3 per cent. on the capital, and the money will be repaid by a sinking fund within eighty years, the rates will be paid out of the rents, and a small margin will be left for repairs. It may be that 3s. is a rent above what the majority of agricultural labourers are accustomed, or can afford, to pay. No doubt that is true. But on the contrary, every group of cottages built in a village raises the standard of the whole of the cottages in the village. The sanitary authority can close the worst cottages, the artisans can take the new cottages, and the labourers can take the houses vacated by the artisans. That has been found to be the result in various villages where cottages have been built. The reason why the Act of 1890 has not been put into force more frequently, is the extreme cumbersomeness and costliness of the Act. Before a single cottage can be built in a village you have to set in motion first, the District Council; second, the County Council; and third, the Local Government Board, and all have to make their own inquiries; all have to decide in favour of the scheme, after careful inquiry, before a single cottage can be built at the cost of, say, £200. It is like using a Nasmyth hammer to crack an egg. The second reason why the Act has proved a failure is that the method adopted for taking land compulsorily is the most costly and intricate known to the law. The third reason is that loans are not granted by the Local Government Board except on the condition that they are to be repaid, both for land and buildings, within a period of forty years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Can you give me the
  160
  name of a parish where a loan has been obtained for cottages?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can give you Ixworth, in Suffolk, where the whole loan was £1,800. It was granted by the Local Government Board, on condition that it would be repaid in the way I have indicated. That was, I think, in 1899. The measures proposed by those who have taken an interest in this question for a long time are these. In the first place, that the District Council should be permitted to build without needing the assent of any authority except the Local Government Board. You should eliminate altogether the County Council, except to retain the concurrent powers they already possess to build if the other Council refuses to do so. That would reduce in a great degree the costliness and cumbersomeness of the proceedings. In the second place, the loans for building ought to be permitted to be repaid during a period extending over eighty years. These cottages have to be built substantially, and they will produce a revenue long after the expiration of that period. The land should be treated as an asset, and the loan for its purchase should not be repayable. In the third place, County Councils should be allowed to obtain land compulsorily, where that was necessary, by the same method as allotments are now obtainable compulsorily. It is a method far simpler and cheaper, and entailing less expense and less delay. In the fourth place, the limit of half-an-acre of land, which may be attached to a cottage under the Acts of 1890 and 1900, should be extended to three acres. District Councils will not embark on these schemes if they consider that there is likely to be a loss, nor will the Local Government Board sanction them. If the amount of land were extended from a half to three acres, they would be far more likely to build cottages on terms that would prove remunerative.
  Then, with regard to administrative reforms, the defects in the sanitary conditions and the overcrowding of houses are largely due in very many districts to the unsuitability of the persons who are appointed as sanitary inspectors. They have frequently no knowledge, not even the most elementary knowledge, of the very principles of sanitary science, and a very vague knowledge of the require-

  161
  ments and possibilities of the law. The Local Government Board might perhaps insist that all sanitary inspectors should be certificated persons, as is already done, I believe, in London and other parts of the country, and not permit the appointment of individuals as sanitary inspectors who do not possess a proper certificate of competence. Further there is the question of the building bye-laws on which a deputation went to the Secretary of the Local Government Board from the Royal Institute of British architects, I think last year or the year before. There was great complaint in many quarters that the bye-laws were too stringent, and made building unnecessarily expensive.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Is the hon. Member referring to the new bye-laws recently issued, because I have received no complaints in regard to these? They have been entirely remodelled in the last six months.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Have the new bye-laws been generally adopted?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That has nothing to do with me. They have been issued to the local authorities.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the local authorities should have some pressure placed on them to adopt the new bye-laws, for there are many places where the old bye-laws are still in force, and put considerable difficulty in the way of building. The Government might use powers wherever possible to impress on sanitary authorities their responsibilities in regard to the housing of the people in the various districts. Where cases are brought to the notice of the Local Government Board more stringent and more stern action should be taken against the District Councils in default. In the next place, the Local Government Board might at once, and without any need of legislation, extend the period of loans from forty to sixty years, which is the statutory limit under the Act. These are measures which all seem practical, and would do much to remove the grievances of which complaint is made. To many on this ide of the House, and I think to many also on the other side, it
  162
  is deeply disappointing to find in the King's Speech this session practically no reference made to measures of social reform. Many of us hold that a prime and constant duty should be to press forward uninterruptedly measures for the improvement of the physical, moral, and intellectual condition of the great masses of the population. This year we are to have apparently only one small measure, dealing with the employment of children out of school hours. I earnestly trust that, although not mentioned in the King's Speech, the Government deal will with the housing question both urban and rural, as well as take such administrative action as is in their power in order to, remove the grievances of which complaint is made. By so doing they will do much to improve the condition of large sections of the population whose interests are committed to our care.
  *MR. TRITTON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to this subject as it affects the rural population. I will refer to it for a few moments from the point of view of a London Member. I am spared the necessity of going into harrowing statistics as to the need of legislation on this subject, because the speakers who have already addressed the House have given us ample food for thought in the statistics they read to us, but at the same time I believe myself as one who knows something of this topic that it is perfectly impossible for any speaker to rise in this House and exaggerate the condition of things now existing. If you were to go to any clergyman, any city missionary, any district visitor, any Bible woman, any volunteer man or woman who is going about seeking to relieve the spiritual and temporal necessities of the dwellers in the crowded cities, they will tell you that there is no greater difficulty which meets them at every turn than the ghastly way in which the people are herded together. It is almost impossible to convince people, living under these circumstances, of the doctrine of the love of God. It seems almost idle to speak to these people living in such wretched hovels of the many mansions promised in the better land beyond the grave. I believe that deep down in our inmost

  163
  hearts there is not any Member of this House but feels, at times, an almost overpowering sadness at the contrasts of existence in this great city, and as he thinks of the awful condition and circumstances under which so many of the poor people live. As a loyal supporter of the Government I desire to express, as has already been expressed, my concern that there is no allusion to this sad subject in the gracious Speech from the Throne.
  I believe myself, that the hon. Member for Camberwell was perfectly justified in his statement when, he said that it is the most pressing of all necessities in domestic policy. As the House knows, I am interested in other kindred subjects. I have often thought whether the wretched housing has much to account for the drink, or whether the drink had much to account for the wretched housing. At anyrate, they are kindred subjects which deserve the earnest attention of the House. I have been glad to see that the domestic policy of the Government I have the honour to support has taken an improving turn of late. No better measure has been carried through the House lately than the Licensing Act of last session. We all hope, and I most earnestly believe, that that good start is going to be followed up, and we are looking today—all of us—for a sympathetic answer from my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. It is not for me to point out to him, as has already been pointed out at
  length and so ably by previous speakers, what measures he is to adopt. I know the difficulties of the problem, but it has a considerable attraction for a great Statesman, and the Government which I support can, I believe, well cope with that problem. I hope, therefore, that before long, they will give us no uncertain sound and make some statement that they, as an Executive, recognise that there are tens of thousands of men and women who live in this country in a state which is a disgrace to our national fame, and that they will do something to take away that reproach.
  MR.JOHN BURNS(Battersea): Not for the first time has the House of Commons listened to a kindly, non-political and creditable speech from the hon. Member for Norwood. Apart from his innate
  164
  virtues as a politician, I can attribute much of the sympathy in his speech to the fact that he was born in the parish which I have the honour to represent, and that he possesses that instinctive goodness which characterises all people who come from my bailiwick. He has the deepest sympathy with the struggles of the poor in London, and for many years the hon. Gentleman has earned the reputation which he so well deserves. He has told the House of Commons what his view—which is entirely different form mine—is in regard to this pressing problem in London. I am delighted that the hon. Member should by his speech have put himself in direct opposition to those in his own Parliamentary district who tried yesterday to prevent the London County Council from erecting artisan dwellings in the area of Norwood. I prefer to listen on this subject to the Member for Norwood than to genteel villadom in their petition to the County Council. The hon. Member has told us that some of the drink, much of the vice, and the wretched condition of the houses of the working classes in London are due to overcrowding, Well, from another point of view I wish to add to that testimony. As a County Councillor I have, during the past three weeks, visited eight of those lunatic asylums for which the London County Council is responsible. On eight consecutive days I have had the sad duty imposed upon me—pleasant in some respects, but wholly sad—of seeing 16,000 pauper lunatics, which this city is responsible for maintaining, and going through ward after ward with the sympathetic doctors and the kindly nurses; going from bed to bed, and from ground to ground, and from asylum to asylum. You say to the doctor in such a ward, "What is this?" and he replies, "Drink." And when you ask him if he wants to qualify that, he will add, "Drink, begun by slum life, low wages, and by poverty, which is preventable in the circumference of the Empire." These are facts which some of us are determined shall be brought home to those who care for the life and happiness of the people of this country. Drink, syphilis, and over-crowding—these are the rough causes given by the doctors for the enormous number of lunatics which London, and other cities as well, have to maintain

  165
  out of the public funds. I venture to say that if the whole of London was housed, not even quite so well, but like the workmen of Messrs. Cadbury at Bourneville, or of Messrs. Lever at Port Sunlight, and of the employees of hon. Members of this House who make no pretence to benevolence or philanthropy in doing it, the average reduction in the ratio of lunatics to the population which would follow would astonish everybody interested in this question.
  But, passing from lunatic asylums, only last week, with two Members of the House of Lords who are Members of the London County Council, I gave three days to the inspection of London's Common Lodging-Houses, where the wastrels and unemployables, who, unfortunately, compose those processions we have seen in the streets, in many cases find shelter. If these men are wastrels and loafers and unemployables, it is because too many of them have been born in slums, and reared on gin or grog, with no one to encourage them to face towards the right. When I see wrecks of life-guardsmen and exmilitiamen; when I note that the physique of the poor is getting worse and worse—mainly through their low wages and monotonous toil—and, above all, their bad house accommodation, I am more sympathetic to the renewal of their dwellings than to Mr. Beit's halfmillion or three-quarters of a million, spent on his house in Park Lane. I say it is the primary duty of this House to insist on this and every Government taking this question of improving the housing accommodation of the poor seriously in hand. At this moment, within three hundred yards of the House of Commons, the King is doing, what? why, inaugurating a County Council housing scheme, accompanied by his wife. At this moment His Majesty and the Queen are driving round what was once the site of one of the worst prisons in the country, and on which 5000 people are now housed. I venture to say that if there is one man in England who would have been better pleased than another to have seen a paragraph on the improved housing of the poorer inhabitants of London, it is the King himself. I can assure the President of the Local Government Board that if
  166
  he will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell there is at least one loyal personage who would be delighted to have the King's Speech so supplemented.
  What is it that makes the Government timid? Public opinion on this question isripe—over-ripe; and the time has arrived when the fruit should beigathered. Let the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board take heart of grace from the speeches he has heard behind him. Public opinion will support any legislation on the subject. Incidentally I may say that all the results of improved housing are profitable. If we were asking for a burden on the taxes, or an increase in the rates by what we are demanding, I can understand hon. Members objecting; but within the last ten years the London County Council has either housed, is housing, or projecting plans for housing nearly 100,000 of the population of this city—a Population of the size of a city like Chester. And if there had been easier facilities and less red-tape there would have been accommodation for 200,000 people. I do not believe in charity rents. On the contrary, I believe in the people paying fair rents. It does them good and stimulates them to keep their houses in a healthy condition. In fact, the poor would be only too pleased to pay for housing ameliorations. There are, of course, here and there bright patches in the gloom of this picture which has been painted not too darkly as a whole. In the last ten years, even with all the hampering and obstruction, there are 81,000 fewer people living in one-roomed tenements in London than before. But we ought not to have one person with a wife and family living in a one-roomed tenement and the fact that we have still 304,000 living in one-roomed houses is the measure of our work, the standard of our duty, and the gauge of our responsibility. I ask the President of the Local Government Board to read the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and, indeed, all the medical journals, which always say the right thing on this matter, and he will find that 124,000 people in London are sadly overcrowded, and that nearly all the large towns in the United Kingdom are nearly as bad, whether we go to Belfast,

  167
  Dublin, Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester. I have recently been in some of the Midland towns, and the thing which struck me most was how bad was the condition of many of the working-class areas in those towns; and the villages are as bad as the towns. In the villages we expect something like Arcadia with clematis-covered cottages, but within them typhus and other diseases are lurking, and very frequently there is a shocking water supply.
  I walked ten miles in a country district the other day to see a very fine country residence occasionally occupied by a Member of this House, and the sad thing to me about that walk was that I only counted seven people. The scarcity of cottages was simply shocking, and when I went into one or two of the villages I was surprised at the scarcity of the houses and at the overcrowding which, under apparently idyllic conditions, prevailed. The cities are as bad as the towns, the towns are as bad as some of the villages, and the rural areas are worse than they should be. Then I, an advocate of private enterprise, may say, "Oh, leave it to private enterprise." I wish I could.
  "For forms of Government let fools contest; That which is best administered, is best."
  When private enterprise does not do its duty, it is time that sympathetic public bodies came in. The public authorities have certainly done well under difficult circumstances, but they want to do more. I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board that, if he wants to stop the rush of men to the towns—which is the most serious problem this country is at present confronted with—he ought to see that in future local authorities should be able to move in the matter of housing quicker, cheaper, and better than they can at present.
  Another advocate of private enterprise may say, "We hope to do something by small measures." Four years ago in this House I was told that I was Knocking the bottom out of the Small Houses Acquisition Bill. In four years forty-four houses have been purchased in the United Kingdom by designing owners, under that Act, and it is simply ridiculous to talk about it, because the thrifty workman who buys a house, then adds another, and wants to live out of three or four is the very worst class of landlord. Spare
  168
  me from the thrifty teetotal deacon who wants to give up work by living on three or four tenants. We are a manufacturing and industrial nation, and our workmen must follow their work. What is the use in giving a workman a brick and mortar anchorage when he cannot pay off the instalments before he dies, and has to leave the house heavily mortgaged. We have got to recognise that the workman must follow his work. Out of 220,000 members in the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society no less than 156,000—thrifty, honest, and able workmen—moved in one year. It is no good telling such men that they can buy their houses, because their work will shift and they will have to follow their employment. Therefore, some public authority has got to step in where private enterprise fails. What we want is, not more house owners, but more houses, better houses, and cleaner houses with cheaper rents. I believe that in London, especially in the East End, we shall have to apply to the rent question some form of judicial rent such as is provided in Ireland in order to prevent 5s., 6s., 7s., and 8s., being paid in Mile. End and Stepney, as rent, by men whose average wage is not more than from 16s. to 18s. a week.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: Would the hon. Gentleman give us his view as to the reason for such an increase of rent?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will leave it to the hon. Member who represents the district. I will not repeat what has been already so ably said, but I believe there are a few practical remedies which might be applied. The period of repayment might be extended from thirty or forty years to sixty or seventy years; certainly with regard to, for instance, the Millbank site, eighty or a hundred years would be a proper period when substantial houses are built. Again, there is no reason why we should not have cheaper money for housing than we now have. The London County Council, being a wealthy body, can get money as low as 2 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] Well, I know one occasion on which the County Council borrowed £1,000,000 at 17/8ths per cent., though probably that was because I myself was associated with the promotion

  169
  of the loan. I believe that the smaller struggling districts should be able to get money cheaply from the Government, just as private owners and corporations are able to get it under the Lands Loans Act. I think, moreover, that if a city like Glasgow or Birmingham makes a large surplus out of its gas, water, and tramways, it ought not to be hampered by the Local Government Board as to how that surplus should be spent. In my opinion, tramway profits generally should be used to cheapen traction, and gas profits to cheapen gas; but the City should be allowed to spend it surplus in its own way, and certainly it ought to be able to spend at least a certain percentage on slum clearances, and so forth.
  Another suggestion is that empty houses, deliberately withheld from occupation with a view to enhancing the rental of another portion of the property, should be rated much more heavily than they are at present. Further, I believe that with regard to housing we want the assistance of the Allotments Act. I believe in equal rights for all white men, and I should be delighted to see English Parish councils given the same power of building cottages that has been given to District Councils in Ireland. Again, if a railway wants to dishouse a lot of people it has compulsory power to do it. Why should not Parish and District Councils have the same power in regard to housing? The President of the Local government Board will say that they have that power, but the law only applies where houses are insanitary. I know some houses which are apparently sanitary according to all the tests of the Local Government Board, but they are over-crowded to an extent that is disgraceful.
  My last practical suggestion is that local authorities, such as the authorities of Birmingham, Glasgow, and London, should have their traction areas extended in the interests of the better housing of the people, and that they should either give facilities to private companies for traction, or, better still, own their own tramways. It is not much good for the London County Council to take people from Westminster to Tooting, and then be prevented from carrying them four miles further, simply because the British Electric Traction Company have spun a steel web of monopoly all round. Every
  170
  great city ought to have it transit jurisdiction considerably enlarged. Another point is that the County Council ought to have power to buy houses that are not insanitary. They ought to be allowed to buy property with a rental of £40, £50, or £60 a year, and having three or four storeys, which could be converted into artisans' dwellings almost at once, and at very little expenditure. If time permitted, I could give a few more practical suggestions, but I will only say that we have too much of the warehousing of the women and children, the public-housing of the men, and the workhousing of the aged, which is disastrous both to the men, women, and children, as well as to the nation, and demoralising to the community.
  Coming as I do from a Scottish family of rather sturdy stock, nursed as I was upon porridge and mutton broth, never having tasted liquor, and doing my best to preserve my physique under great difficulties, I sympathise most intensely with the occupants of the slums, who are very frequently as they are through no fault of their own. They come to you to ask for a sympathetic hand to help them out of this pit of Tophet, and it is the duty of the President of the Local Government Board to act up to the best traditions of his Department. My advice to him is to insert a paragraph in the King's Speech with regard to this matter. It will meet with approval in high quarters, and will follow up the excellent work done by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his admirable Licensing Act of last year. If our industrial efficiency is to be maintained, and our commercial supremacy is to be assured, it can only be done in the homes of the working classes. Let us see that strong healthy women produce strong and healthy children, and that when these children are produced they shall be reared not in palaces and surrounded with oriental luxury, but on the simple common fare out of which we were able to produce the men who stood the brunt of Cressy and Agincourt. Let the poor of our big cities have the opportunity for which they crave and we ask; if we give them that opportunity, the man to show them the way is the President of the Local

  171
  Government Board, on whose shoulders the responsibility rests, and I hope he will rise to the level of his duties.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he thought his hon. friend, the Member of Camberwell, was well advised to submit this Amendment, and that the hon. Member for Battersea was not far wrong in what he had said, because the position of the agricultural districts was little less than alarming. He was perfectly certain that the want of houses for agricultural labourers was causing the depopulation of the country districts. It was on that account that there was such a derth of labour in the Eastern Counties; and on that account that the villages were full of boys and old men. If such things went on, he was at a loss to see how we were going to man the Navy, to find men for the six Army Corps, or to find men to guard the frontiers of our Empire. The reason of the depopulation of the country districts was obvious. The agricultural labourers of today would not put up with the pigsties which their forbears put up with, with rotten walls and thatches. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and one ounce of practice was worth a pound of theory. He had been putting up a cottage or two himself, and he had found it impossible to put up a pair of cottages under £600. That was the cost, and he could not get more than £4 a year rent. So that his return for an outlay of £600 was £8 a year, of which £2 must be knocked off for insurance, repairs, rates, taxes, etc., so that really all the return for this outlay was one percent. He could not expect poor farmers to lay out their capital for such a return. No man unless he was a fool or a philanthropist who wanted a title would lay out his money for a return of one per cent. interest. He was perfectly well aware that the Local Government Board had lately modified their conditions, and he only hoped they would carry out the modified regulations they had suggested. If the hon. Member for Camberwell was really in earnest, as he (Major Rasch) believed he was, this was the line he ought to adopt, and it was on this line, which was the line of least resistance, that they would derive some effect from this particular Motion.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought one or two of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down were a little exaggerated. For instance, a rental of £4 was, so far as the neighbouring county of Suffolk was concerned, inaccurate. It was also inaccurate so far as the districts to which the remarks of the hon. Member for Cleveland applied, although the housing question in these places was just as bad.
  MAJOR RASCH: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I get less than £3 a year rent in many cases.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was quite possible that in many cases the rents would not pay interest on the cost of the cottages, but there were other districts where the rent would pay some sort of interest, and where, if the sanction of the Government were obtained, it could be done. He had been doing the same thing in Suffolk, and there he could build a cottage for less than £200. It might not be a very large cottage, but it would contain two or three bedrooms and two living rooms, and, when erected, would let at £5 a year to agricultural labourers earning 13s. or 14s. a week, although of course they did not pay the rent out of that. They depended on their harvest money, £8, which they earned during the harvest, to pay their rent and keep them in clothes. So it was quite possible in many districts, if people were only encouraged—if there was a law passed enabling district or parish councils to carry out the work as they are allowed to do in Ireland, without any of the difficulties or hindrances of present law—a great deal might be done in the country districts.
  He had had great experience also in the London housing question, and he might say there were two great evils to contend against. Of course, in a city like Devonport, where the land was all held by one man, that man could name his own price, but where there were many owners the price of the land was not the difficulty; the difficulty was that where land was cheap the communications were not sufficient and they could not get proper communications. The Government did not assist in any way in increasing the communications with the suburbs and less crowded country districts. Outside our great

  173
  towns there was any quantity of room or housing many millions of people, but the communications was not sufficient. It was enough to watch the trains at some of our stations in the morning to see how overcrowded they were, and what a lack of facilities there was. There should be new lines of communication to country districts not built over, and the trains we have should extend and make fresh routes to bring the people up to their work. The reason this was not done was because they could not do so without coming to this House and spending thousands of pounds and fighting opposition and competition on all sides, all of which hindrances should be swept away.
  In spite of the fact that there were fewer one room tenements to be found in London itself, he feared that one room tenements were beginning to grow up in places which were not now called London. In West Ham there were many one room tenements, so that the evil that afflicted London was only moving a little farther out. There was one great remedy for that, which would have to be faced some day or other. However much they respected the old laws of property, and however sacred might be their regard for vested interests, the Government would have to face the question in this way. They would have to say that when a house was reduced to one room tenements the rent must be proportionately reduced, and that it should not be in the power of the landlords to get a greater rent from such houses than they would obtain if the houses were inhabited by one family. It should be left to the local authorities to make an order, not that the house should be pulled down, but that a house should pay no rent until it was put into proper order. Until that was done, these large spots of vice, misery, poverty, and dirt, and these centres of disease, would remain in our great towns. He hoped it would not be long before the Government did something in that regard. He congratulated his hon. friend on having moved this Amendment, and he hoped the Government would so far give way as to promise to do something in regard to this great question. If not, and the debate was pressed to a division, he hoped that hon. Members opposite would stand by their consciences, even to the extent of voting in favour of the Amendment against the Government.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Like all other resident squires, I have had much personal experience in this matter, and my last experience in this matter, and my last experience is, perhaps, worth putting before the House. From a great deal that has been said, one would imagine that if the local authorities had more power there would be the increase of accommodation which, in some cases, is badly needed. I am as interested as any owner of land can be in the effort to provide good dwellings for the rural labourers, and I retain in my own hands all the cottages on my property. Recently I built one or two pairs of cottages which cost me between £450 and £500 a pair. Last year, when the agricultural depression was very severe, I thought I might assist the farmers in my neighbourhood by reducing the rent of the cottages from £4 to £3 to any labourers who, for twelve consecutive months, had served any one master. I thought that would be an inducement to labourers to stay, but no sooner had I done it than a Local Assessment Committee met and raised the assessment of the cottages very considerably. I asked the reason, and was told that in as much as I had chosen to build cottages for labourers which were worth a great deal more than the rent charged, they would add to the assessment an amount which would show what they thought those cottages ought to be let at. Is that an inducement to the country landlord to try to carry out such work? I do not think the Assessment Committee were going outside their powers, but I think I am right in saying that if that line is taken by public bodies, we must remember that it will not be private owners who are failing in their duty, but public bodies who are really stifling the effort of the private owner.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I hope the President of the Local Government Board will assent to the two very moderate demands for legislation made by the hon. Member for Camberwell. The first demand was that the Government should carry out the extremely definite recommendations of the Joint Committee last year, in order to prevent railway companies and similar bodies evading their obligations in regard to re-housing. The necessary

  175
  Bill would not be contentious, and I should think there could be no objection on the part of the part of the Government to promise legislation on that point. The second demand was a proposal, not of the hon. Member for Camberwell himself, but of the Secretary of the Local Government Board. A Select Committee, of which my hon. friend was Chairman, last year considered the allegation of a number of local authorities that the short period over which loans could be spread rendered it difficult to exercise their powers under the Housing Acts. The Committee unanimously declared that allegation to be established, and a proposal was made by the Secretary of the Local Government Board that the period should be extended to eighty years. I cannot believe the Government will fail to carry out that recommendation. It was with those two demands the debate began, and I thought it would be possible for the Government immediately to promise to promote the necessary legislation. But they desire to hear the views of the House on the general question. The Government must be convinced by what has already been said that in all quarters of the country, among all sections of the community, and among all political parties, there is a feeling that this question is one of great urgency, demanding prompt and efficient attention, which attention I have no doubt it will receive.
  The two measures referred to by the hon. Member for Camberwell have not been very effective, though doubtless they were promoted and carried out with the best of motives. There must be experimental legislation in these matters, and, provided they proceed to try again, it is in no way derogatory to a Government to admit that they have made a trial which has not been a success. Although not mentioned in the King's Speech, I hope we shall have an assurance that during the present session this matter shall be dealt with. Such a promise, so far from impeding the Government, would greatly strengthen their position, and a further attempt to deal with this difficult and most important question would be generously met and supported in every quarter of the House. It is clear that such a proposal
  176
  must practically consist in conferring increased powers on local authorities. It has been shown in this debate that local authorities require additional powers, and that existing powers have not been fully exercised because of the existence of certain obstacles. A Bill conferring those additional powers and removing those obstacles would probably be read a second time without opposition; it could be referred to a Grand Committee upstairs, where it would be discussed in a business-like spirit, and afterwards passed through the House with the expenditure of very little time. At the end of the session the Government would then have the credit, which friend and foe alike would gladly give them, of having placed on the Statute-book a measure which would do a great deal towards dealing with this most important question.
  MR MUNRO FERGUSON: The subject we are now discussing is one which affects not London, or the south of England alone, but the great mass of the urban population of the country. I should like to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the bearing which the incidence of local taxation has on the subject. Last year there was a discussion on a Bill embodying some of the recommendations of the separate Report on Urban Rating and Site Values, issued by Lord Balfour's Commission. In that separate Report we read that—
  "Anything which aggravates the appalling evils of overcrowding does not need to be condemned, and it seems clear to us that the heavy rates on buildings do tend to aggravate these evils, and that the rating of site values would tend to mitigate them."
  The hon. Member for Thirsk, in that discussion, rather threw over that separate Report, and it would be interesting to know whether that subject is likely to be dealt with in connection with housing. The question of local taxation has been thoroughly threshed out, while the question of housing is still to a large extent a matter of experiment, and we have it here, on the highest authority, that the reform of local taxation in the way they advocate would tend to mitigate the burdens on buildings and to provide

  177
  more housing accommodation in the larger towns. I hope the subject will not escape the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in his reply. In the country districts the question is comparatively small as compared with the towns. The town question is made plain in this Report, and whilst the inquiries were going on there was no want of speed in dealing with a measure for the relief of the rates on agricultural land. Now, however, there appears to be less celerity in applying some of the most moderate and admirable provisions to meet the evils which we are now discussing.
  *MR. BUTCHER: I would like to join with those hon. Members who have urged upon the Government the necessity of bringing forward some legislation upon these vital questions. I will assume that the Government are as keenly alive as any hon. Member to the necessity of making the Housing Acts practical and efficient for the purposes for which they were intended. I think anyone who has listened to this debate will agree that no heroic legislation is necessary in order to make the existing legislation effective. It is rather a question of dealing with defects which at present greatly hamper local authorities. There are no party controversies likely to be aroused by this question, and this debate shows sufficiently that both sides of the House are equally anxious to remedy these defects, and that, if the Government will bring in a Bill, they will receive support from both sides of the House. There are two points I will mention upon which I think the Government ought to do something. The first is that there ought to be some extension in regard to the period allowed for the repayment of loans. Upon this point we have had the recommendation of a Royal Commission, and I hope the Government will give effect to the recommendation. My second point is that power ought to be given to the local authorities to meet the case of a house unfit for habitation, and which is incapable of being rendered fit for human habitation. There is with existing Acts a power for the Local Authority to call upon the owner to make an insanitary dwelling fit for habitation, but the provisions on the subject are difficult of application and cause immense delay. I would suggest that the President of the Local Govern-
  178
  ment Board should consider the necessity of bringing in legislation giving power to the Local Authority to obtain a summary order for the closing and demolition of the insanitary house. Those are two points upon which, I think, legislation is urgently needed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to say something with regard to the general principle of the question we are now discussing. I think both sides of the House will agree that we have had a most valuable debate, and I congratulate my hon. friend, not only also upon bringing this question forward, but also upon having received so much support from both sides of the House. Hon. Members seem to have exhausted the subject from a practical point of view, and I rise merely in consequence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, which, I think, has had great effect on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech shows that he would welcome such a proposal on the part of the Government if they introduced a measure to deal with this question during the present session of Parliament. The matter has not been dealt with in the King's Speech; but, nevertheless, this is one of the most pressing questions which require to be dealt with.
  There are two points upon which I do not believe there is much difference of opinion, and upon which two Committees have already reported. Firstly, there is the question of the extension of the period for the repayment of loans, which would enable the local authorities to a certain extent to reduce the rents of the houses which they erect. My other point is in regard to an alternation of the Standing Orders of this House, which will place an obligation on railway companies and other public companies to properly house the working classes when they are displaced by railway schemes. These are the two points upon which I do not think there would be any difficulty in carrying through a Bill. I am not speaking of any great radical reform such as the Land Question, because to ask now for such a measure would be hopeless, but I think we are all agreed that the local authorities ought to be given greater

  179
  power to deal with the owners. Where it is thought now that rehousing is required there are often technical and administrative difficulties in the way, and while I do not wish to dispossess anyone of his rightful possessions, for which a fair price ought to be given, I think the owners of insanitary areas and slum property ought not to receive a single sixpence above the proper value. That is the point upon which I think a reform could be effected by giving greater powers to the locality to deal with these areas. In conclusion I wish to endorse the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, and to say that we on this side of the House shall welcome any attempt to deal with this question during the present session of Parliament.
  *MR. WALTER LONG: No one can deny that the debate we have listened to this evening has, as the hon. Gentleman opposite just said, indicated practically unanimity of opinion in all quarters of the House in respect of what I may call small reforms as opposed to drastic or great measures. But the hon. Gentleman for Camberwell, in the interesting speech he made, did not confine himself to small suggestions. The hon. Member suggested some reforms of a heroic character, but he also said that he felt satisfied that these suggestions would not be adopted by the Government, and he only threw them out to indicate what his own policy would be. Putting aside those drastic proposals which have been made by hon. Members rather as an expression of their own views than as a forecast of anything they hope to see carried out, we reach, as the outcome of this debate, some minor suggestions, in reference to which I hope I shall be able to give the House assurances which will not be altogether unsatisfactory.
  The debate has been of a very wide character, because almost of necessity hon. Gentlemen have addressed themselves to questions not only connected with the Acts of Parliament relating to the housing of the working classes, but also to the administration of the sanitary laws. After listening to the debate, and after hearing hon. Gentlemen on both sides wax eloquent about the apathy of the Local Government Board
  180
  and the failure of my Department to put pressure upon local authorities, and the indifferent performance of their duties by medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, I desire to say that I only wish those sentiments prevailed in the breasts of those same hon. Members when the Local Government Board do take action in such matters. Almost invariably it happens that the moment pressure is put by my Department upon a medical officer, or upon an inspector of nuisances, the result is that the hon. Member in whose constituency this occurs will communicate with me telling me that grave injustice is being done. When I tell District Councils that they ought to employ properly qualified men; when I maintain this position and decline to sanction any other appointments, hon. Members generally bring pressure to bear upon me, either by cajolery or threats. These hon. Members are generally those who are the first to tell the Local Government Board that they do not do their work properly. I hope that, in future, the hon. Members who ask me to put pressure upon local authorities and ask me to take action, will preserve the same demeanour when they address their constituents, and decline to be induced by them to put pressure upon us, and thereby make it more difficult for my Department to carry out their suggestions.
  There is no doubt that, without any resort to heroic legislation, a great deal can be done in connection with sanitary administration. There is a great deal that can easily be improved, and at very little cost. One proposal which is made repeatedly to the Local Government Board is that an individual, holding a public health appointment of prime importance, might be allowed to hold other posts at the same time. I have so far refused, and so long as I am responsible for the Department I shall continue to refuse, to accede to that proposal. I shall insist that there shall be no merging in one individual of two or three appointments, to all of which it is impossible that he can do justice, even if he could do it to one. In a recent case I have suggested that a separate appointment should be made to the post of inspector of nuisances. I have called the attention of the local

  181
  authority to the fact that, at the current rate of inspection, it will take twelve or fourteen years before all the houses in their district will have been inspected. When I make these comments the reply that is made to me is that I am interfering with the discretion of the local authority, and interfering with gentlemen who are doing good work. Then the next step is for the Member for the Division to come to me to try to convince me. When he fails he falls back upon the old story of red-tape, and he threatens to raise the question on the Vote for my salary when the Estimates come before the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, can you wonder that Ministers are necessarily exposed to the criticisms we have heard today? If hon. Gentlemen will give us their support in the districts which they themselves represent, they will, I venture to say, be doing more practical work in connection with these problems than by making speeches, however effective and eloquent these speeches may be.
  I recognise entirely the non-Party character of the debate that has taken place today, and I rejoice at it. I am bound to say, at the same time, that I do not think the hon. Member for Camberwell and hon. Members on the other side of the House today have been altogether fair to His Majesty's Government in reference to what has been done in connection with this question. We had a debate on the Address last year on the same subject initiated by the hon. Member for Camberwell, and then there were four points to which he made special allusion, and they are the four points around which the debate today has mainly centred. I need not refer further, to the proposals for what is called a drastic reform of the land question, because they are not regarded by those who make them as within the domain of practical politics at present. Then there are the question of the extension of the time of loans, the question of transit, and the question of administration. Now I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been quite fair to the Government, nor has he done himself justice, because he was responsible for the Amendment last year, and he might have taken some credit to himself for the result of the promises which were then made on behalf of the Government. On the contrary, he and those who supported him have almost
  182
  continuously condemned the Government. We have heard of the gross indifference, inaction, and neglect of the Government on this great question, and similar statements had been made this afternoon for every one of which I venture to say there is not a shadow of foundation.
  In regard to the question of loans, the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter was in my hands in the middle of last year, and if we had not had an autumn session, which threw a great deal of additional work on my Department, I should have been able to give fuller time to the consideration of the Report. It was my duty to secure not only that the recommendations of the Report should be considered by my Department, the Treasury, and the other Departments concerned, but that, in arriving at a decision, we should adopt some practice with regard to the loans which would put the whole question on a permanent and satisfactory basis. I do not want to make any improper excuses for my Department, but I doubt whether the House realises how heavy were the demands made upon it and other Departments during the whole of the last autumn session, and how very little in the way of holidays some of those in the Departments have had. Therefore it was impossible to hasten the final consideration of these recommendations, and the final solution of the question, but I am now, I hope, within measure able distance of the end. I think it will be my duty during the session to ask Parliament to pass a Measure dealing with the loan question, and some other difficulties which have arisen. But when I am asked why it is not referred to in the King's Speech, I venture to say that there has been no session in which Measures have not been passed which were not included in the King's Speech. I confess it did not occur to me that in connection with the smaller Bills pertaining to my Department, it was either necessary or desirable to enumerate them in the long list of Measures already to be found in the King's Speech. Some of them may be found on the Statute-book before the end of the session, and though they may be probably be quite as useful to the local authorities as some larger Measures.

  183
  It is no use talking of this question of the housing of the working classes as if it could be remedied by one or two of the suggestions made today. It is not by facilitating the powers of demolition and rebuilding, or by the building of new houses altogether, that it can be done. It is a much larger question than that, and it includes that very important subject to which greater reference was made last year than this year, namely the question of transit. We are told that we do not make the railway companies do their duty in regard to the Cheap Trains Act. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment told us that there had been a considerable increase in the provision of these trains in recent years. There are many more workmen's trains now than five or six years ago, and everybody who has studied the problem knows perfectly well that it is not merely a question of profit and loss to the railway companies. Whether they want, or do not want, to put on workmen's trains, it is a question of the possibilities of the case, having regard to the traffic they have to carry. That is the most important part of the problem in London itself. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has obtained sanction to the appointment of a Royal Commission which will inquire into the whole question of transit within the metropolis. Therefore, two of the most important points raised in this Amendment last year have been attended to between the debate of last year and the present time.
  Now I come to administration. I have certainly no desire to claim any undue credit for the Department with which I am connected, but I venture to say that, during the whole of the past year and the preceding year, as the local authorities themselves would, I am sure, testify, we have been unremitting in our endeavours to ascertain at first hand in the localities what are the difficulties in the way that ought to be removed. I do not think enough justice has been done to the legislation already passed through the House dealing with the housing question. It has been said, with perfect truth, in many eloquent speeches which have been delivered on both sides of the House, that there are festering sores in the shape of slams to be found in all our large communities, and that they are a disgrace to our civilisation. At the same time it is due
  184
  to the local authorities to state that in all our great municipalities, enormous strides have been made in the last ten or fifteen years in dealing with the housing question. A great deal of most excellent work has been done, and mayors and members of corporations will admit that the Acts already in existence had provided machinery sufficient for the purpose they had in view. I think it is only fair when so much criticism is forthcoming that there should, at all events, be some few points advanced on behalf of the local authorities, and also on behalf of the legislation which, from time to time, we have carried in dealing with this question. There is difficulty in dealing sometimes with what, for the sake of brevity, are called "condemned buildings." Most certainly in no quarter of the House will you find any sympathy for the owners of property who fail to recognise that property carries with it responsibilities, and who allow their property to become a positive curse to the community. Provision was made to meet these cases in the Act of 1980, passed by my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not trespass on the time of the House by reading the whole of Section 21 of that Act, but if any one will read it carefully he will find that it is almost impossible to conceive language better calculated to give effect to the views which my right hon. friend enunciated then, and which I endorse now. There is a financial difficulty arising under Section 21 which has hither to met local authorities in their attempt to bring the Act into force. The suggestion has been made today that we ought to enable them to obtain these sites and buildings easily and cheaply. Well, I venture to say that that section is as strong and full as it is possible for anything to be. Only one practical suggestion has been made to me on the subject. That was by a Corporation which has had great experience in connection with this matter. They told me that there is nothing wrong in the section; its provisions should make it impossible for property to be sold beyond its fair value, regard being had to its condition. They said that that was all satisfactory and sufficient; but it is the practice of submitting the price to arbitration which has, for some unex-

  185
  plained reason, led to the financial difficulty to which I have referred. It has been suggested to me by that Corporation that the law should be altered to make it the same as that which obtains in the City of London, where it is possible to refer a case of the kind to a jury. The power to refer such cases to a jury is so effective that practically it is not exercised. The very fact that it it there is sufficient to hold the owners of such property in check. That is a suggestion which I am considering; it is one of the smaller proposals to which I have referred, such as the hon. Member for Cambridge had in his mind when he spoke of small Amendments which we might make in the general law.
  Then there is the question raised by the hon. Member for York—the difficulty of getting possession of the condemned buildings. There is no doubt that that is a practical difficulty. The powers are quite sufficient for the condemnation of the building if it is overcrowded or in an insanitary condition. The local authority can either close the building or call upon the owner to put it in a sanitary condition, but no power seems to exist enabling the local authority to deal with the property between the time of its condemnation and their getting possession of it. And here, I think, the law might with advantage be altered. This again is only a small proposal, but one which might be of use. All I have said applies to these difficulties as they exist in urban districts. I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Lichfield in which he gave us a most interesting account of his experience in the rural districts. When he came to tell us about the rents he was getting for his cottages, and the cost of building them, I felt my mouth water as a landlord who has had considerable experience for twenty-five years in building and letting cottages in a rural district. I do not think we could get 3s., or even 2s. 6d., a week as rent for such cottages in my district. The hon. Member talked of building a cottage for £200, but he will pardon me for saying that these figures are illusory, because £200 in one district means £250, or even £300, in another district. And it must be remembered that 3s. a week, taken as a return for the money spent would be prohibitive
  186
  as applied to the majority of rural districts. The hon. Gentleman gave an instance of a village where he saw twenty-one cottages unfit for human habitation, and we were told that the legislature ought to deal with such cases, and that the local authority ought to be compelled to act more promptly in shutting up old houses. But what are the difficulties we have to deal with? Let us say that there are twenty cottages in that condition. The owners are, in nine cases out of ten, non-resident; they have bought the cottages as a speculation, and have probably never seen them. Are you to build new cottages out of the rates? In such a case any one who had made a suitable provision of cottages on his own estate would have to bear an additional burden on his rates because his neighbours had not done their duty. Is it any wonder that local authorities hesitate to act in dealing with this problem, which is altogether different from that to be dealt with in urban districts? It is not because they do not appreciate the evil effects which arise from overcrowding. There is not a monopoly of desire for reform in any one set of individuals. Everybody realises that if we could deal as effectually as we could wish with this matter, we should do much to promote sobriety in the classes who meet with the terrible temptations engendered by squalid surroundings, and should also add to the muscle of the nation. It is idle to ignore the fact that, apart from the small questions to which I have referred, there are, in the opinion of many, other and larger difficulties which can only be approached in the drastic manner suggested by some hon. Members for dealing with the land problem; but I venture to say that, whatever advantage there may be thought to be in that suggestion, it will be many a long day before proposals of such a kind will be given effect to by any Government. Small amendments of the law are possible and desirable; and I hope it will be my fortune, after this debate and the assurances made to us, to find every desire in all quarters of the House to welcome small non-controversial proposals which will have the effect of altering the law in the directions I have indicated. If we shall not have any heroic legislation, at any

  187
  rate proposals of that kind will be welcomed in all quarters and will be regarded as helpful. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for me to make some such small alterations in the law as I have suggested. I hope it will also be possible to deal with the question of loans, and put that matter on a satisfactory basis, not only in regard to sums required for buildings, but other expenditure, so that there shall not be the variety that at present exists and results in the imposition on the rate-payers of different burdens for the same class of work.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What about the period of payment?
  *MR. WALTER LONG: That is, of course, included in the statement I have made. I take the Report of the Committee as it stands. Naturally, I do not commit myself to adherence to every part of the Report, but in regard to rehousing, the proposal is that the period should be extended to eighty years, with certain provisions in regard to the mode of repayment. My object is to secure cooperation in the different Departments, so that we may have a common policy and get rid of uncertainty and variation. I am not possessed of the eloquence of some hon. Members, and I, therefore, cannot put my views in the same attractive shape, but I hope I have said enough to show that the Government are not behind the House and the country in their desire to deal in a practical and efficient manner with the housing problem. We certainly are not wanting in sympathy with those who are condemned to such conditions of life as we know to exist in too many towns, and in some even of the country villages, and I hope that if the House remains in its present frame of mind we shall avail ourselves of the opportunity to make some modest proposals for legislation which will not be regarded as unworthy., though they are not large and searching measures of reform.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): This debate, in my opinion, is perhaps the most important in which we shall be engaged this session. It will encourage the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward a measure in the
  188
  direction which my hon. friend the Member for Camberwell has indicated. The right hon. Gentleman seems to consider that he has been ill-used by Members of constituencies who always come forward to attack the Local Government Board for their action to these constituencies. Well, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember, and I think he is encouraged by this debate to remember, that these Members are only one, or at most two, and that he will have the support of all the remaining 668 in the measure which he is proposing to bring forward. I gather from the right Hon. Gentleman—and I am very happy to hear it—that he holds out the prospect—that he makes a promise, of a Bill this session. This my hon. friend the Member for Camberwell has achieved by bringing forward his Amendment; and a most valuable gift it is. That being so, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be too modest in his proposals. He has got behind him the House of Commons, and he has got, as one hon. Member said, the power of the House of Lords. These are circumstances which do not often unite themselves. Therefore I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that small Bills on great questions often postpone a real remedy, as has happened in this very case. When the housing of the poorer classes was brought forward, two or three years age, we were told, "We have passed a couple of Bills; wait until we see how they work.' We have waited to see how they would work, and we have found that they did not work at all. Therefore, to bring in a measure, or measures, which do not really meet the case is actually doing no good at all, and may do some harm.
  There was some talk of dealing with the railways, but that would be only touching a particular point apart from the main question altogether. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what is really the point of the case: How are you to deal with insanitary houses? In my opinion you ought to deal with them as a public nuisance. You ought not to deal with a large insanitary area at great expenditure, but you ought to have power to deal with individual houses as you deal with other nuisances. If you do that you get rid of what you desire to get rid of. When the right hon. Gentleman introduces his measure—which I

  189
  hope he will do before long—I trust he will deal with that aspect of it as well as with the smaller difficulties he mentioned.
  There are two points to which I wish to direct attention—one is the shutting up of insanitary houses and the other the getting possession of them. I hope that these will appear in his Bill. I am not going to detain the House by discussing the details which have been dealt with so fully and practically in this debate. I feel myself very strongly the absolute necessity of dealing with the rural districts. I live in a rural district myself, where the housing of the labouring people is detestable, and something ought to be done regarding it. I was very sorry to hear the manner in which my hon. and gallant friend opposite the Member for the Newport Division was treated by his Assessment Committee, but I would suggest to him that he should reform his Assessment Committee in order that they should deal as liberally with the matter as I am sure he wishes. I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant friend put the cost of building cottages at a lower figure than that given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Chelmsford Division, who said that they would cost £600. I am quite sure that very good cottages indeed can be built for a great deal less. Therefore, the difficulty is not a great as has been stated.
  I will only sat to the right hon. Gentleman I am quite sure, from the language which has been used on both sides of the House, that if he goes forward on this matter boldly and strongly, he will have the support—I was going to say the unanimous support—of the House of Commons in legislating in this direction, and in the administration which is so urgently necessary for the curing of one of the greatest social evils in this country. We talk of pecuniary difficulties in this matter. When we think nothing of spending millions upon objects which are, in my opinion, far less necessary and far less useful. I think we might do something, at all events, for our country at home, in the direction of developing its resources, of which the greatest of all is the health and well-being of the labouring population. If
  190
  you would only spend, I will not say a tithe, but a quarter per cent. of the money you are spending upon objects which, in my opinion, are far less valuable, you would be doing that which I believe would redound to the greatest advantage of the Empire of which we are all so proud.
  *SIR JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: I think that every hon. Member on the other side will be satisfied with the reply which has been given by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, as far as the question is connected with his Department. I think we have had an assurance from his that he will take up the subject as far as to deals with the extension of loans in the course of the present session. I have been more fortunate during the autumn than my right hon. friend, in not having so much labour on my hands. I therefore amused myself during the past few months by going carefully into the report of the Committee which inquired into that subject last year, and I have drafted a Bill dealing with the recommendations of the Committee. If I am fortunate in the ballot tomorrow, I trust the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will see their way to giving facilities for the passing of that Bill, as by doing that they will economise time, and the subject will be dealt with. Although I think the House is fully satisfied with the reply of my right hon. friend, we have not yet had a reply to another side of the housing question, which in my judgment is much more important. A Committee sat last session to inquire into the Standing Orders of Parliament, and I should be glad to know from my right hon. friend the Home Secretary whether he will be prepared to introduce a measure embodying the proposals made by that Committee with reference to the displacement of persons by companies and public authorities. I have also drafted a Bill on that matter, and will try my luck with it in the ballot tomorrow. The extension of the period of loans is a very useful but a small part of the question; a much more important problem is the evasion by companies and public authorities of their obligations

  191
  when they displace large bodies of the population under compulsory powers. I have given the figures in this House on a former occasion, and they show that this is one of the most important points in the housing problem. I, therefore, sincerely ask my right hon. friend to take up the recommendations of this Committee and introduce a Bill dealing with the subject this session.
  MR.WALTER LONG: May I explain to my hon. friend? I regret I omitted in my reply to refer to this question. As my hon. friend knows, the amendment of the Standing Orders is a matter for the Chairmen of Committees rather than for the Government. I am entirely in favour of the suggestions made, but whether they should be embodied in a Bill is a question I cannot answer until I have had some further conference with the Chairmen of Committees. I believe I shall be able to know what their views are in a few days.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Then we shall be able to hear from the Government whether legislation is required or not, and, if so, whether it will be introduced.
  MR. WALTER LONGassented.
  MR. FIELDsaid he thought an Irish Member was entitled to speak on this question, because during the debate, it appeared to be imagined that it did not touch Ireland at all. As one of the Members for Dublin, he could assure the House that this was a burning question in Dublin, and also in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and other places. The housing problem really touched Dublin in a more extraordinary way than any other city in the Empire. Its death rate was higher than that of any other city in the three Kingdoms, and that arose principally from the want of proper accommodation for its artisan and working classes. At present, they were only touching the fringe of the subject. Twenty years ago, when the present King was Prince of Wales, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the question. How far had they progressed since? Apparently every Govern-
  192
  ment was afraid to go to the root of the question, which was the land question. He knew he would not be in order in discussing the question of land values, but it was at the root of the housing problem.
  There could be no doubt that this was a question upon which all sections of the House were more or less agreed. It was one of the most important subjects that the House could discuss, because all over the three Kingdoms the natural trend of population was towards the cities, and the municipal authorities had not the requisite power to enable them to provide the necessary accommodation for the influx of population. The extension of loans, and the giving of increased powers to muncipalities, would not solve the problem. They wanted a much more drastic remedy. He was a member of an Urban District Council that was at present engaged in endeavouring to solve this question, and they found that the expense of obtaining the ground upon which the slum dwellings were situated was enormous, the legal expenses were enormous, and the delay was notorious. The system of transferring titles to property in this country really demanded attention in this regard, as it often happened that an Urban District Council had to pay more for obtaining the site than the building would be worth when erected. He did not at all agree with the President of the Local Government Board when he thought the House would be satisfied with what he called his modest proposals. This difficulty was not going to be met by a moderate proposal; it was going to be met by the consideration by this House of all the questions involved. They involved the principle of the welfare of the working classes of the three Kingdoms.
  Everybody who had studied the social evolution of the times must be aware that in all our great cities, and, for the matter of that, in many of our small towns and villages, the housing of the working classes was the crux of the question at the present moment. The effect of this system was most serious to the community at large. The health of the working classes was stunted; they were placed in positions not favourable to moral growth, and the result, generally, was that in the three Kingdoms an inferior class of people

  193
  was being produced by the environments by which they were surrounded. Therefore, as an Irish Member representing a city constituency, he was of opinion that there was no question more deserving of the attention of the House than this. He saw many other measures put down in His Majesty's Speech, as being of prime importance, which could not compare with this question. What was the fact? Almost every Member had appealed to his constituents to vote on this question of the housing of the working classes, and yet, when it came to be discussed seriously in this House, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell, they found on both sides of the House, except among a few earnest men, a desire to shelve it with a moderate proposal. A moderate proposal never yet met the crux of a great question in the affairs of a nation. They wanted to solve this question, and unless it was solved something more serious than hon. Members expected might happen. In the past, civilisation had been overturned by the incursions of barbarians into a country, and it is possible that our civilisation might be overturned; if it were, it would be by our slums—by the rebellion against the land system, and the capitalist system, which condemned the workers to live in a state of barbarism. When this Motion went to a division, as he trusted it would, he should have great pleasure in voting for it, and no matter who adorned the Government Benches, he trusted there would always be a certain amount of opposition on that side until this question was satisfactorily settled, so that the workers might have that to which they were legitimately entitled—a decent home at a reasonable rate.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid as a Member of the Committee which carefully considered the question of the terms of the repayment of loans, which underlay so much of the present discussion, he desired to say a few words. He hoped when the right hon. Gentleman came to consider the Report of the Committee, he would not simply adhere to the term of eighty years, but that he would remember that there was a division, on his (Sir Albert Rollit's) Motion as to whether that term should not be 100 years considering the permanent nature of the land as an asset, and also the
  194
  public policy which underlay the question of the housing of the working classes; the majority in that division was only a majority of one against the substitution of the term of 100 for eighty years, and but for the accident of one of the Members for Ireland, whose representatives had rendered great assistance to those Members of the Committee who, like himself, favoured the greatest facilities for housing, had had to leave the Committee to attend to his duty as Whip in this House, the voting would have been equal. The length of the term of repayment might be most material. It had been truly said it would make only a marginal difference in the rent, but that difference was sometimes all the difference. On the one hand, they had cheap houses run up by a jerry builder; on the other, those erected by the municipality under conditions, resulting in good and permanent houses. The hon. Member for Plymouth on that point quite convinced the Committee that there might be a difference of 1s. a week in these terms, and that was a difference which was all material. The effect of that difference was that if the municipalities and other local authorities had to put up houses on a short term of repayment the result might be that they would have to raise the rent and let them to an entirely different class of tenant to that which was contemplated by Parliament. On the other hand, if they had to reduce the rent, then they served one class, and one only, at the expense of the general body of ratepayers.
  This question was not a political question, and it was not a class question, because the object of these Acts of Parliament was to benefit the whole community. The principle which in it underlay the protection of health was the same as that which underlay Acts for the equalisation of rates which he had always strongly supported. But, while he was determined to press this housing question, he thought the House might reasonably accept the promises and assurances given by his right hon. friend, who had, as he thought, very properly complained that there had been some disposition to overlook what had already been accomplished. He hoped his right hon. friend would

  195
  allow him, on behalf of the municipalities, to say that his right hon. friend had set an example, in going down to the districts where these problems were being solved, and getting technical information on the spot, second only to that of the Colonial Secretary in his visit to South Africa. Housing was the most pressing social problem of the day, second only to national pensions, and it must be kept in the forefront of social legislation.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this matter had not, he thought, given a grain of comfort to those Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and who certainly represented a large body of public opinion. They were not satisfied with his modesty on this occasion, however much they might admire it on others. They represented diverse interests in diverse parts of the country, which was a good education for discussing matters in this House. It had been intensely gratifying to him to listen to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Shropshire and Essex with reference to the cottages they were building on their estates, but this was not a matter of the policy of any one man, it was a question of the policy of the country. In his constituency it was not a question of the landlords building houses, but of the people being able to get land on which to build their own houses. There was plenty of land if the people could only get it, and they could get it but for the restrictions placed on them. He was sorry to see the modesty of the right hon. Gentleman and his disinclination to deal with the question.
  One reform they desired was that properly constituted authorities should have power to acquire land where they wanted it. Lerwick, the principal town of Shetland, was an object lesson; there the Borough Council had no power; the County Council had no power; neither could move hand or foot; and just at the very edge of this important town were a number of slums which were a disgrace to the town and the nation. There was an enormous danger threatening any town which allowed abominable dwellings of this character to be erected at its very gates. There they had no sanitary inspector, and nothing could be done
  196
  except through legislation in this house; if such things were allowed to go on, it was not difficult to forecast the result. The duty of hon. Members in the House was not to be modest but to speak their minds. These places to which he alluded had no back gardens, no sanitary arrangements, no water, no lighting; nothing but an open sewer, only occasionally flushed, running in front of the houses. That was surely enough to point out that such Boards as they had in Scotland, like the Congested Districts Board or the Crofters Commission, should have big and extensive powers for dealing with this question. They should have power to acquire land. It was only a question there of getting the land, and that was not a very extravagant demand. It was the duty of the House to get to the bottom of these difficulties, and this proposal would not meet the requirements of the country in the matter. It was a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and he was convinced that no question of greater importance could come before the House this session. Their duty here was to find out who were the responsible parties, and to saddle them with the responsibility.
  That responsibility rested with the Government in the first place, and with the individual property owner in the second. Property had great duties as well as rights, and if those duties were neglected, the Legislature would soon have to take into account the question of how far the rights of property should be permitted to control and interfere with the well-being of the nation. Why should not the owners of slum property be made responsible? Why should they be paid extragavant prices for their abominable, festering dens of iniquity? Why should not such property be condemned, so that the owners would be glad to sell it for anything they could get? But, after all, what was the use of spending thousands of pounds in building beautiful workmen's dwellings, if the places of our work-people, the backbone of the country, were to be taken by the refuse and scum of foreign nations? In the interests of the health and well-being of the nation at large, the standard of civilisation, prosperity, and comfort should be raised to as high a level as possible. But, as the lower organism would always kill the higher, it was the duty of every section of the community to endeavour to protect

  197
  and foster the highest civilisation we could possibly have in the country. He cordially supported the Amendment.
  *MR. FORDE RIDLEY: We are all in sympathy with the wording of the Amendment, but I am surprised that the aspect of the question just referred to, viz., the unrestricted influx into this country of pauper aliens, has not been more generally discussed. It is the key to the housing question, especially in the East End of London; it is the cause of all the overcrowding and the insanitary dwellings that there exist. I agree that heroic measures are not required to deal with this question. To talk of the extension of the period for the repayment of loans, or of any other aspect of the case, is like pouring water into a barrel and leaving the bung out, unless some measure is introduced by which this influx of foreign paupers is stopped. I know of cases in the East End where new buildings have been very quickly made as insanitary as any in the district. The "Boundary Street area," a great slum district in East London, was cleared, and, at enormous cost, the County Council erected magnificent blocks of model dwellings, which are already nearly half full of aliens, who live under conditions such as we would not like to see our working classes subjected to. I hope something will soon be done to remedy this evil. It is growing by leaps and bounds. Nobody can be blind to the great increase in the number of foreign criminals constantly being brought before the Courts. The question is pressing itself to the fore, and the evil will soon become so rampant that measures will have to be taken to cure it. I am sorry hon. Members intend to press the Amendment to a division, because the Government have already appointed a Commission on the question of the immigration of foreign paupers, and while that Commission is sitting, legislation is impossible. I hope, however, the Government will see that there is no undue delay in the presentation of the Report of that Commission, which has now been sitting long enough and has collected sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion. I, for one, gratefully accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will do what is necessary
  198
  to introduce a Bill shortly dealing with the question, and I hope the Government will also take steps to mitigate the national curse of this country—namely, that of being made the dumping-ground of foreign criminals, from whatever country they may come.
  *MR. DUKE: So far as the practical aspect of this question is concerned, I think the declaration of my right hon. friend will give great satisfaction to municipal authorities throughout the country. The point which those, who have been endeavouring to bring the Housing Acts into successful operation, have of late years been pressing on the Local Government Board, it that some steps should be taken to render it possible to provide houses at such a price that they can be occupied by the poorest classes of the community. At present that is impossible, and the chief blot on the existing system is that the excellent dwellings erected by local authorities are occupied by people considerably higher in the social scale than those for whom the dwellings were intended. Local authorities find it impossible to provide houses at a rent which people earning 20s. or 25s. a week are able to pay, and consequently this class, when driven from their old insanitary dwellings are simply compelled to create insanitary areas elsewhere. I do not know that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would remedy that, but it would be a step in the right direction. His suggested change in the rate of interest will make a difference of about ½ per cent. on the cost of the loan. I think my right hon. friend might increase that to 1 per cent., and so secure an abatement of about 1s. per week on the rentals of cottages which at present are 4s. or 5s. I hope the Local Government Board will not insist on the adoption of the instalment system, as a condition for the extension of the period of repayment, because the result of such insistence will be to maintain the difficulty which is at present a barrier with many local authorities in the way of providing dwellings.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will give the local authorities the option of paying upon either of the systems at present in force, that will be some measure of relief.

  199
  Owing to the burden thrown upon them for sewage work and sanitary undertakings, many corporations have reached very near the limit of their borrowing powers. In the borough I represent, this problem remains just as much unsolved as it has at any time during the last twenty years. Dwellings have been erected, and they have been readily occupied by persons who ought to be provided for by private enterprise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to introduce Clauses which will do something to deal with the present difficulty of getting possession of insanitary buildings, and which will reform such matters as those which deputations from local authorities have drawn his attention to.
  I should like this question of housing put into the hands of inspectors of the Local Government Board dealing separately with this matter, who would be able to give practical advice to corporations as to the easiest and cheapest methods of bringing housing schemes into operation. These schemes are often stifled on account of the expense put upon them. There is the expense of numerous inquiries, costly plans, and delay; one obstacle after another interposes itself, with the result that the scheme does not get carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has at any rate one gentleman who has been engaged with conspicuous success in carrying out housing schemes, and who is probably the author of the most successful housing scheme for the poor which is in operation. If the right hon. Gentleman could create a sub-department, where local authorities would find a consistent course followed, to render assistance from time to time in dealing with these practical difficulties, he would give a most valuable token of his sympathy with the desires of local authorities for reform of the housing of the populations over whom they have charge, Last year, in the debate which took place upon this subject, I said that the requirements of the Local Government Board as to housing sometimes threw a burden of 50 per cent. additional upon the cost of the scheme. I have had the opportunity of looking into the information which was then supplied to me, and
  200
  I am satisfied that I did an injustice to the Local Government Board. I have attended the deputations which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I have seen that, at any rate under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, a sympathetic attention is given to the requirements of local authorities, which gives general satisfaction to the representatives of those local authorities in the country. I have no difficulty as to what I shall do on this Amendment. I regard it as a mere attack for political purposes upon His Majesty's Government, and therefore I shall vote against it.
  MR. MOON, I think a great many of us sitting on this side of the House must have felt relieved to know that the omission of this question from His Majesty's Speech was not intentional or deliberate. This proposal puts some of us in the position of being called upon to vote against an Amendment with the terms of which we thoroughly sympathise. I know that the reasons for voting against this Amendment are difficult to explain to those who do not understand the position. I am rather afraid, from the course which was pursued on a similar Amendment last year, that this question will be pressed to a division in spite of the satisfactory assurance which has been given by the Minister in charge. I think that it is a regrettable situation. There is one matter upon which I think there has been a decided omission. There is a provision for demolition and reconstruction, but what we want is some provision for adaptation. I quite agree that we do not want heroic measures, for what we require is legislation on minor points.
  *MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I do not think that, by altering the law as regards the erection of workmen's dwellings or by creating better means of transit to crowded centres, you will ever be able to remedy the congestion of the population in big towns. The only remedy which will be effective is one which lies with private enterprise, and that remedy is the removal of factories from the centre of towns more or less to

  201
  the outside and to districts where houses can be built cheaper. That is the only observation which I desire to make.

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  O'Shee, James John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd.)

  Palmer, SirCharles M (Durham

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hay. Hon. Claude George

  Perks, Robert William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayden. John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reckitt, Harold Jam s

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Hope John Deans (Fife. West

  Reid. Sir R. Threshie (Dumfrics

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundce)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roche, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, David B. (Siransea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt Hn.C.R. (Northants

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cronacall)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean. John

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, John Lawson, (Leeds, S.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murnaghan, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barusley)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Wason, John Catherart (Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson. Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. ecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ffrench. Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Licerpool)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Kearley.

  Grant Corrie

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Aird, Sir John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 2).

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Mudx

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Helder, Augustus

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Sm'rs't, E)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bull. William James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renwick, George

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jeffreys. Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Ropner Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chapman, Edward

  Kemp, George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Slaop)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(IslcofWight)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Kimber, Henry

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Craig, Chas, Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Doughty, George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stock, James Henry

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  M 'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M 'Killop, James (Stirtingshire)

  Talbot, RtHn. JG. (Oxf'd. Univ.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thornton, Percy, M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH(sheffield)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mitchell, William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flower, Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE(Taunton)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts)

  Murray, RtHn. A. Graham(Bute)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby(Salop)

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gretton. John

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Percy, Earl

  Groves, James Grimble

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hain, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Purvis, Robert

  Main Question again proposed.

  BRITISH INTERESTS IN CHINA AND PERSIA.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I rise to move the Amend-
  204
  ment standing in my name, in order to draw attention to the urgent necessity for taking adequate measures for the safeguarding and promotion of British commercial and political interests in China, and also in Persia. The necessity

  205
  for more vigorous action on the part of His Majesty's Government in upholding the commercial interests of the British Empire in China, is clearly shown by the recent statistical commercial report concerning the trade of China which we have received. As compared with 1896, the total foreign trade of China in the year 1901 showed an increase of about £9,000,000, and, not-withstanding this fact, we find that British trade in 1901, as compared with 1896, showed a diminution of no less than 16 per cent. Then again, as regards tonnage, the carrying trade in connection with China amounted to 48,500,000 tons; but whereas in 1896 the British proportion of the carrying trade amounted to no less than 65 per cent., in 1901 it had gone down to 53 per cent.—a diminution of 12 per cent. This is still more serious when we have regard to the fact that whilst we in our carrying trade in the far East are losing ground on the one hand, Germany has between 1896 and 1901 had an increase of 10 per cent., and Japan an increase of 9 per cent. I think these figures clearly show that there does exist great necessity for taking vigorous measures for the upholding and the promotion of our commercial interests in China.
  There has recently been concluded a new commercial treaty between Great Britain and China, and on the whole one is bound to say that if that treaty comes into force, and is reasonably carried out, it will prove to be a considerable step in advance as compared with the Treaty of Tientsin under which we have been previously trading in China. But in connection with the new commercial treaty there are two or three considerations which I would like to put before the House, and on which possibly the noble Lord, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, may be able to give us some further information. Under the existing Treaty as amended by the Protocol of last year, the 5 per cent. ad valorem duty on imports was increased to 12 ½ per cent. by a 7 ½ per cent. surtax, which duty was also to be charged on goods crossing the land frontiers. The Likin under the new treaty is to be abolished. Well, we can all hail that news with satisfaction, though some of
  206
  us may have some doubts as to whether in reality that will be by any means wholly carried out. It may be that no Likin under that name will be levied, but there is a fear—and it is to this point that I draw the attention of the Government—that when we find that the Chinese Government still retain the right to tax salt and opium, and also to levy what is termed in the treaty, a "consumption tax," throughout China, on all goods consumed of Chinese origin, and that they will continue to have native custom houses, there is great danger that by this machinery the duty will still be levied on foreign goods imported into China. I am in doubt whether the provisions of the treaty will prevent such illegal charges. The treaty provides that such cases shall be remitted to a tribunal consisting of a British officer, an official of the Imperial Maritime Customs, and an official of the Chinese Government. My own personal opinion, whatever it may be worth, is that we should have had a stronger guarantee for the carrying out of the new treaty. We know that the Treaty of Tientsin has not been carried out, and that in addition to the 7 ½ per cent. which was to be the maximum duty, there have been squeezes extorted from all those transmitting goods in the country, and that they have had to pay much more than the treaty allowed. The greatest possible vigilance should be exercised to secure the proper carrying out of the provisions of the treaty, and I am of opinion that we should have made the payment of the surtax of 7 ½ per cent. conditional on the effective carrying out of the provisions of the treaty.
  Now, this treaty, good though it is in many respects, will not come into operation until assent has been given to it by all the other Powers enjoying the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment in connection with trade in China. In any case it will not come into force until January 1904; and I should like the noble Lord the Under Secretary to tell us if His Majesty's Government are aware whether any of these Powers have, up to the present, given their assent to that treaty, and will fall into line in this matter. The position we stand in is this, that we have agreed to give the Chinese 12 ½ per cent. on goods im-

  207
  ported into that country. That is a great advantage to China, but the danger is that whenever other Powers are approached by them seeking their assent to this treaty, some of them will endeavour to extort from China concessions on condition of their giving that consent. Now, I am quite aware that the treaty contains a provision which sets forth that no commercial or political concession shall be given by China to any other foreign Power as a condition of assent ot the treaty; but we know from experience how often things are done behind our backs, quite contrary to the understanding arrived at. However, I am bound to say that this treaty does bear evidence of an enormous amount of thought, time, and care expended on its negotiation, and I think we may congratulate the Foreign Office and the gentlemen associated with them in getting through the treaty in so favourable a form. The only question is as to whether it will ever come into force, and whether adequate measures are taken that its provisions will be honestly carried out.
  We were told that in 1898 an agreement had been arrived at under which British ships would be able to carry British goods to every riverside town on the great inland waterways. We know that that has been an absolutely dead letter. I am glad to see a certain amount of redress had been obtained by a provision for opening five new Treaty ports. Steamers are to be allowed to take in cargo and passengers at certain of the ports on the Yang-tze and West rivers; and there is also a provision that obstructions to navigation shall be removed in the Canton river, and that the harbour of Canton shall be improved. No provision, however, has been made in regard to the removal of obstructions in the waterway of the Yang-tze, leading up to Chung-King. I am glad ot see that the improvement of the Whang-po is to be under the supervision of an International. Board, for we have had experience in the north of China, on various rivers, that these improvements have not been sufficiently carried out. Another great advantage of the new treaty, on which I congratulate the Government, is that they have secured that the same duties shall be levied on junks and steamers; and in addition to that, we have also the right
  208
  to introduce the best appliances for hauling our steamers up the rapids on the Yang-tze river. Altogether in the negotiation in regard to the navigation of the inland waterways, certain progress has been made. On the whole, I trust that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to reassure us as to the likelihood of this treaty coming into force, and that His Majesty's Government will exercise all vigilance to see that its provisions are carried out. By the treaty the revenues of the provincial governments are taken away, although there is a provision of some sort to secure to them a share of the sur-tax equal to the revenues they have hitherto been receiving. That provision, however, seems to me to be a little too vague; it is not sufficiently definite, and it is simply to be found in letters appended to the treaty, and not in the body of it. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance on that point.
  Turning to the question of British trade in China, I wish to refer to railways. We have been told in this House, and through the Government documents, that British concessionaires had secured concessions to the extent of 2,800 miles of railway. Now, China, the greatest and richest Empire on earth is for the first time being supplied with a system of railways. But what is the position today so far as British investors and manufacturers are concerned? Go where you like in China, Russians, French, Germans, and Belgians are busily engaged in laying down railways, the whole of the railway material and rolling stock for which must be drawn from the countries of the concessionaires, to the exclusion of British manufacturers. And not a single mile of the 2,800 miles of railway granted to British concessionaires has yet been finally ratified, although I am glad to know that one or two concessions appear to be in a fair way to be ratified. I think that the British manufacturers and investors must feel that, somehow or other, they do not receive from the British Government the same support that the Russians, Germans, Belgians, and French receive from their Governments in securing their concessions, and in carrying through their railway enterprises. At any rate, no one can deny that it is a most unfor-

  209
  tunate, most disappointing, and most unsatisfactory position for this country, which had always been ahead of all other countries in the world in railway enterprise, and which had now practically no share or lot in the matter. Another point in connection with the railways is that we have not had any assurance of a definite character that all nations shall enjoy the same rights and privileges in regard to railway rates. The ex-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had pointed out the importance of it in his communications with China; but the question is, how far has any agreement been arrived at, and, if an agreement has not been reached, is it being sought for at the present moment?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN Ar FAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): It is in the Treaty of Tientsin.
  *MR. J. WALTON: I should much rather it were included in the new treaty, and brought up to date and expressed in form that would be more applicable to present conditions than is the antiquated Treaty of Tientsin. The very fact that it is in the Tientsin Treaty shows that it ought to have engaged the attention of the Government in negotiating the new treaty, which, I imagine, supersedes the Treaty of Tientsin. The danger is that this provision may fall to the ground. Then there is the question of hindering our commerce with China by having imposed on that country too heavy burdens in the shape of indemnities. I am bound to say that the Government in their despatches have shown that they did not wish to press too hardly on China; it is an unforuntate circumstance, however, that what the Chinese nation is feeling so much now is the great fall in the price of silver, so that instead of 450,000,000 taels being sufficient to pay off the indemnity, it means at least a third more, a result of the fall of the tael from 3s. to 2s. 3d. since the Protocol was signed. The Chinese asked that they should not be required to pay more than 450,000,000 taels. I find from the Blue-book that the German Government understood that the bonds, together with the Sinking Fund and interest, were to be ex-
  210
  pressed in taels, whereas the British Government said that the bonds should be expressed in sterling, reckoning the tael at 3s. The British Government knew perfectly well that the demands of some of the Powers were extravagant, and they were anxious that the burden should press as lightly as possible on China. Therefore, in view of the fact that the Government adheres to the bonds being expressed in sterling, I would urge that there should be some abatement in the terms.
  I wish to know whether Shanghai has been evacuated by all the Foreign Powers; also whether the noble Lord can give us any information as to the important question of the arrest of Chinese in the International Settlement on a warrant issued by the French, counter signed only by the senior Consul, and without a primâ facie case having been made out before a mixed court in the International Settlement. I should be glad to know whether a settlement has been arrived at in this matter, because it is manifestly unsatisfactory. The French would not tolerate for a moment the entrance into their settlement of police officers to arrest Chinese, and we should not tolerate it either. There are 250,000 Chinese living in our Shanghai International Settlement, and they should not be subject to arrest without proper examination of the charges against them. Then I would ask the noble Lord if he can give us any further information with reference to the situation at Niuchwang. Has it been handed back to Chinese administration, and are the Customs being collected by the Imperial Maritime Customs officers? I should wish to know whether there is any foundation to the statement that Russia has demanded, and has insisted upon, the appointment of a Russian officer to collect the duties at Niuchwang Custom House. Niuchwang is a treaty port in which Russia has no greater right than the British or any other Power.
  Returning to Shanghai, and to the conditions under which it was evacuated, we have another proof of the undesirability of acting too much, at any rate, in concert with Germany in Chinese affairs. The history of our association with Germany in the far East is a most

  211
  unfortunate one. To have our troops under the command of a German General after we had opened up China to trade, and after we had been the predominant trader there for generations, was, to say the least of it, not satisfactory to British feelings and British patriotism. As an Englishman, I felt ashamed to be allied with the Germans, and to have to stand by and see marauding expeditions in Northern China which destroyed villages withoutany provocation whatever. But the history of our association with Germany in China is further unsatisfactory in this respect, that when we concluded the Anglo-German Agreement we foolishly, as I think, not only recognised her priority of right in Shangtung, but we admitted her to equal rights with ourselves in the Yang-tse region, which was regarded as our special sphere. The Germans, indeed, call this Agreement the Yangtse Agreement, but, notwithstanding the fact that they had this clear and definite Agreement with us admitting them to equal rights and privileges in the Yangtse region, they thought it necessary to go behind our backs and get another undertaking from the Chinese, which was certainly directed against British interests, if it were specially directed against any interests at all. Under that undertaking China was—
  "Not to grant to any Power special advantages of a political, maritime, military or economic nature, nor to allow the occupation of any other points commanding river, either above or below Shanghai."
  To this our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs most properly replied—
  "The British Government's objection was that it was an arrangement which would affect not only the economic, but also the political, military and maritime conditions of the region concerned, and it would be binding only upon a limited number of Powers and restricted in its operation to portion only of the Chinese Dominions."
  Subsequently the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that we would not regard ourselves as in any way bound by that arrangement, but unfortunately it still remains a fact that that undertaking has been given by China to Germany, and if China does not observe it Germany will call her to account for any breach of it. Therefore, whether we regard ourselves as bound by it in any way or not, it remains. It is most unsatisfactory that after the manner in which
  212
  we treated Germans in regard to Shang Tung, as well as admitting her to equal rights and privileges in the Yang-tse region, her statesmen should have thought it fit or necessary to extort an undertaking of this nature behind our backs from the Chinese Government.
  In connection with the evacuation of Shanghai, it was very satisfactory to note that our Japanese allies gave us most cordial and complete support in the objections which we raised. The only other point to which I will refer in connection with China has reference to Southern China and to piracy on the West River and Cantonese waters. It appears to me, from all the information that I have received, that a complete patrol by gunboats is required in these waterways. There is still a great deal of piracy, and my information is that our French neighbours are extremely busy in promoting, extending, and making their influence felt in that part of the Chinese Empire. We admit freely that the French have equal rights and privileges with ourselves in Southern China, but, having regard to the importance of our trade and our long association with that part of China, and to our having for generations practically policed these waters, I do not think that the House will agree that the Government should relinquish their position or cease to play the part they have played in the past in ensuring the observance of law and order in China. With reference to Manchuria, the noble Lord in previous debates read extracts from speeches and despatches leading the House to understand that the evacuation of Manchuria by Russia would be complete, and that its administration would be handed back to the Chinese as it existed before the occupation. Well, an agreement was arrived at between Russia and China, but what do we find from the latest reports to hand? That although the Russian troops have been moved from the location they were in a short time ago, there are to be found today, along the railway which Russia has built in Manchuria, not the small number of railway guards which their Agreement provided they should have, but in all probability 30,000 Russian troops. We find that the Chinese arsenals have been despoiled of their guns, and

  213
  that all the war material and ammunition has been taken away from them, and that the Chinese are not allowed by Russia to have a larger number of Chinese troops in Manchuria than Russia sanctions. What does this amount to? To this: that Russia today is in complete and effective military occupation of the whole of Manchuria, and that the idea of its being returned to Chinese administration as it was before has neither been fulfilled, nor appears likely to be fulfilled. The last communication that we have in the Blue-book is to the effect that Russia adhered unswervingly to her intention, as fairly and frankly declared, to withdraw the troops of occupation, and to restore the province to its position as soon as the state of affairs in Peking and the normal condition of China would permit. I am afraid that the normal condition of China will be very long delayed, and, in fact, is never likely to arrive. But the question of importance to us as a nation is how far our treaty, commercial rights and privileges are going to be upheld throughout Manchuria, and whether any steps have been taken by the Government to protect them. I am sorry to have had to detain the House by asking for this information with regard to China, but some of the questions, at any rate, to which I have referred the House will feel are of very considerable importance.
  I am interested in upholding and extending the trade of the British Empire. The same applies to what I shall have to say as to British interests in Persia. The fact is that British trade is diminishing rapidly in Persia. In 1889 Lord Curzon estimated that British trade in Persia amounted to £3,000,000 a year, as compared with Russian trade £2,000,000. But the last estimates we had, the estimates of 1900-01, more than reversed the position, because we find that Russian trade has gone up from £2,000,000 to £4,500,000, and British trade has gone down from £3,000,000 to £2,000,000. That is to say, Russian trade has increased 125 per cent., and British trade has decreased by 33 per cent. That is a most unsatisfactory situation for British traders to have to face. After all, many millions of the people of this country depend upon our foreign trade for a livelihood, and if we have a dwindling trade in China, Persia, and other places, it is no wonder that we have unemployed who cannot get work to do. The Economist gives
  214
  some further statistics. During the first eight months of 1901 our exports from England to Persia amounted to £700,000, but in the first eight months of the following year, 1902, they amounted to only £423,000. One Manchester firm reports a diminution of no less than 80 per cent. in the course of a few years, although they have made every effort to retain it.
  With regard to our political relations with Persia and our ancient prestige there, it is a matter for regret that our prestige and influence in Persia to-day has diminished enormously as compared with what it was in the past. Yet Persia is a country capable of being greatly developed. In the past its ancient cities, like Persepolis and Isfahan, had 1,000,000 inhabitants each, and we cannot forget that these regions only require irrigation, and that if that were applied there are potentialities of wealth in them that would astonish us, and would afford room for an enormous development of trade. The traditional policy of this country with regard to Persia is to preserve the integrity and independence of that country. We ask for and wish to have no preferential privileges and rights in Persia. We only desire to have the open door maintained, with equal rights to trade there under the most-favoured-nation Clause; but unfortunately we are handicapped in our trade with Persia.
  We did a large trade with North Persia formerly, but after the Treaty of Berlin Russia practically strangled our trade by enforcing large import duties on British goods passing through Russia for sale in Persia. She has closed the Caspian Sea to all ships who do not fly the Russian flag, though we have, on the other hand, in that other practically inland sea, the Persian Gulf, done police work, and yet given all other nations an equal opportunity to trade there along with us. But the result of Russia closing the Caspian Sea to the flags of other nations, and the imposition of heavy import duties on goods passing through her territories for sale in northern Persia, has been that we have lost our trade in northern Persia. Russia has gained trade not only in this way, but also by giving bounties upon goods sold by Russian subjects in Persia, and giving facilities on her railways, etc., for the carriage of Russian merchandise for sale in Persia. She also, as the noble Lord knows, has built, at a cost of nearly

  215
  half a million, three great highways down into the north of Persia to facilitate trade. Those roads have not been built by private enterprise; to a large extent the cost has been borne by the Russian Government. What has been the result of this policy? That our trade has diminished.
  I do not wish to point out how our trade has diminished without endeavouring to show also how in the future our trade may be maintained.
  As the Russian Government has employed these means in Northern Persia, so I would urge the importance of the Indian Government, or the British Government, employing the same means to promote British trade in Southern Persia. Regard should be had to the position of Persia in relation to India, that it lies on the borders of India to a large extent, and that its seaboard is adjacent to the seaboard of India. By our supineness in not taking up a proper commercial position in South Persia we shall soon be within measurable distance of finding Russia also dominant on the Persian Gulf. First, by a commercial harbour soon to be turned into a naval base and connected by railway with the Russian Empire. What would then be the position of our Indian Empire? We have always considered that India was virtually protected by the Great North-Western mountainous frontier, but with Russia on the Persian Gulf they would have turned the flank of our North-Western mountainous frontier, and the natives of India would have to find millions of money for increased defensive forces. We are the trustees of that Empire, and the problem of safeguarding it is one of the first importance, and one to which the Government ought to address themselves without a day's delay. No doubt the Government may say we are not prepared to risk money in foreign countries; but what about the Indian Government? Will any one tell me that when the British and Indian Governments refused to guarantee the two and a-half million loan to Persia in 1900 they were not committing a suicidal act with regard to the commercial and political interests of this country and of India? The Government of India had better have guaranteed ten times two and a half millions than have had
  216
  the impecunious Government of Persia handed over to the Russians. We are told that the security for the loan was not satisfactory, but Persia has since obtained another loan of one and a quarter millions from Russia, and two-thirds of the Customs receipts cover both interest and redemption of principal on both loans.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [17th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr Gretton.)
    Main Question again proposed: Debate resumed.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: When the House adjourned I was referring to the necessity of safeguarding our Indian Empire by taking adequate means for upholding the integrity and independence of Persia. And in this relation, having regard to the much greater importance to our Indian Empire of the Persian question, it seems to me it might be by no means undesirable that the affairs of Persia should be undertaken rather by the Government of India than by the Foreign Office of this country, partly because of the nearness of Persia to India, and therefore India would have a much better knowledge of everything that was happening in Persia than it was possible for the British Foreign Office to have. With regard to the question of British interests in Persia and the Persian Gulf, it was with satisfaction that I heard the

    217
    noble Lord the Under Secretary last January say, as an announcement of the policy of the Government—
    "There is no change in the attitude maintained by the British Government in the affairs of the Persian Gulf. Our position in the Persian Gulf, both commercially and politically, one was of a very special character and His Majesty's Government had always considered that the ascendancy of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf was the foundation of British policy. This was not merely a statement of theory; it was a statement of fact. Our trade interests there far exceeded those of any other country. Our recognised maritime supremacy secured our political ascendancy."
    And I am glad to be able to quote another high authority as to the importance of our maintaining our ascendancy, and that is our present Viceroy of India, who wrote in 1892:—
    "I should regard the concession of a port upon the Persian Gulf to Russia by any Power as a deliberate insult to Great Britain, as a wanton rupture of the status-quo, and as an intentional provocation to war; and I should impeach the British Minister, who was guilty of acquiescing in such a surrender as a traitor to his country."
    I am glad to say the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State, after his statement of last January which I read to the House, will stand in little danger of impeachment by the Viceroy of India in this matter. But the question we have seriously to consider is, how we are to maintain our commercial position in Southern Persia, and to maintain the status quo throughout Persia? With regard to our commercial interest in Southern Persia, I am glad to find they are in a more favourable position than in Northern Persia. The predominance of British ships in the Persian Gulf in 1900 was that of 766,000 tons out of a total tonnage of 960,000, or 90 per cent.; but we are threatened with rivalry and competition on the part of Russia. She has agreed to subsidise a line of steamers from Russia to the Persian Gulf, in order to develop her trade there. The system of bounties to steamers is, of course, objectionable to us, but we have to face the fact of this increased and keen competition on the part of Russia.
    To promote British trade in South Persia, it appears to me necessary for the British or Indian Government to take precisely the same steps as the Russian Government have taken in the North. The British or Indian Government
    218
    should assist British enterprise by the construction of roads from the Persian Gulf up into Southern Persia in order to develop British trade. One route requiring improvement is by the Karun River, and from Ahwaz, via the Bakhtiari country to Ispahan, and another should be made from Baadar Abbas via Yezd and Kerman to Ispahan, and another from Kum to Ispahan, with connecting roads from Kermanshah and Sultanabad. There should be from the Foreign Office or the Indian Government some subsidies given for this purpose. A nominal subsidy is given to one trade route, but I think it would have been much better had advantage been taken of the presence of the Shah in this country to present him with the Garter, and the expense of the Mission sent to Persia for that purpose could these have been devoted to facilitating our Persian trade. It is a matter of satisfaction that the Quetta-Nushki railway is already under construction. A Keen interest is taken by the Viceroy of India in the development of that route. The trade there has developed most satisfactorily. In five and a half years it has risen from five lacs to sixteen lacs a year, and I should be glad to know from the Under Secretary that the interference by Russians with British caravans going by the Quetta-Nushki route to Persia has ceased, and that there is now no hindrance to the free trade of our Indian subjects, on that route. In addition to obtaining the necessary concessions from Persia for the construction of these roads, there should undoubtedly be obtained the right to construct railways along the line of these commercial highways.
    One most objectionable feature in connection with the Persian situation today is the fact that in connection with the loans which Russia has made to Persia, she has imposed conditions which are unfair and unequal, as affecting other nations. As a condition of her loans, she has compelled Persia to bind herself not to borrow money from any foreign Power until 1912. The security for the Russian loans expressly excepts the inclusion of Customs receipts at Persian Gulf Ports and Faristan. I hold that Russia, being a party along with us to repeated declarations of our

    219
    respective policies, and those policies being identical—namely, that the integrity and independence of Persia should be maintained, we should not tolerate any interference on Russia's part with the right of British banks and British subjects to make a loan to Persia on the security of the Customs receipts that are not pledged to Russia.
    Russia has also debarred Persia from granting concessions for building railways until 1912, and the reason of her doing so is obvious. She is engaged with her great Trans-Caspian Railway, and it is not convenient at present to push railways in Persia, and, therefore, she has debarred Persia from granting any concessions. But I hold we have an equal right with Russia to lay railways in Persia, and we ought not to be bound by any conditions imposed by Russia when making a loan which will prevent our doing so. We should maintain for this Empire rights to build roads or lay down railways in Persia equal to those enjoyed by any other Power. Reverting now to the new commercial treaty made between Russia and Persia; we are now trading under the Most-Favoured-Nation clause with Persia, but under the new treaty between Russia and Persia there has been an attempt to impose higher import duties on products coming from the British Empire than on products sent from Russia. Every nation now pays a 5 per cent. ad valorem duty on imports into Persia, but in the case of tea we find under the new treaty a duty of 100 per cent. is fixed. On Manchester cotton goods the import duty has been raised 4 per cent. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government has yet received a copy of the Treaty, but if they have, I hope the House will be informed to-night how far it operates against our trade and in favour of Russian trade. The bulk of the tea which goes to Persia comes from the British Empire, and such an increase must greatly cripple our trade with Persia in tea. I hope we shall have from the noble Lord to-night a satisfactory statement that British trade will be protected, and that we shall not only enjoy the Most-Favoured-Nation terms but that we shall not be subjected to additional import duties on products we send to Persia as compared with those levied, our products sent by other nations. I raised this question in January last year,† and
    220
    the Government made a sympathetic reply on that occasion. I then had the honour to have my Amendment seconded by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India, and I can only hope that now, when in office, he may hold the same open and enlightened views he held then; and that we shall have from him great assistance in upholding British interests in Persia. What I have to complain of is that words have not been followed by deeds. Although the Under Secretary of State's statements have given satisfaction, they have not been followed by any action on the part of the Government. I should desire to have to-night from the noble Lord some assurance that the Government's policy is to be an active policy, though not of an aggressive character; a policy of firmly promoting and upholding British commercial and political interests by the insistence upon our full political and commercial rights.
    MR. CALDWELL: In rising to second the Amendment moved by my hon. friend, I only desire to say a few words. I think he has done good service in bringing to the notice of the House the affairs of these countries. So far as the Amendment is concerned, it is one with which the House will cordially agree, though probably great difference of opinion will arise as to what is the best method of promoting our interests in these countries. Hitherto we find there has been a tendency on the part of the Government to try and make political capital out of some of these events with regard to China. This was apparent when Russia got possession of Port Arthur. There was no need to make any apology for allowing Russia to take possession of Port Arthur. It is what we should have done, in spite of all resistance, if we had made a railway down to it of our own; but the Government then told us that, in order to equalise the matter, they had acquired Wei-hai-wei, which we were told was a much superior place. Now we find, after all the money that has been spent upon it, it is of no use, but is merely a health resort. It is injudicious to try and make political capital out of these matters, because if Russia thought we had the
    † See (4) Debates, ci., 574.

    221
    better of her she also would strive for more. When Russia got hold of Port Arthur we are told that we ought to rejoice because the British Government had secured a sphere of influence in the Yang-tze Valley. But not long afterwards the Government came down and said that the Yang-tze Valley was to be the "open door," and that the United States and Germany had agreed to it. That means that we have no advantage whatever. Of course the United States and Germany would agree to the open door, because we have everything to lose, and they have everything to gain by it.
    How has the matter worked with regard to Shanghai? At one time there was a little difficulty about the landing of troops. The House has not sufficiently considered that Shanghai is not a British port at all. It is a treaty port, and every other nation has the same right there as we have. Consequently, when we landed troops at Shanghai for the protection of British interests, Germany, Japan, and every other country landed troops also, and they were only withdrawn on the condition that the Chinese Government should not grant any special advantages to this country. German trade in the Yang-tze Valley has increased from 2 per cent. to 17 per cent. of the total, while ours has correspondingly fallen, while everybody knows the enormous advance the Germans have made in Shanghai. Military prestige is very important in China, but where were our forces at the time of the insurrection? We had to apply to India for Indian troops, and even then we were at the bottom of the scale as regards numbers. Now that the British Army is relieved, the Government should take care that nothing is done to lower our military prestige in these quarters. It is all very well to talk about pressure being brought to bear on the Chinese Government. It is undoubtedly a weak Government, but it is to the interest of the European Powers to keep up its prestige, because you have at any rate a Government with which you can deal.
    The missionaries are the great difficulty with regard to disturbances in China. The Chinese have no objection whatever to missionaries preaching the Christian
    222
    religion in China. The lives of missionaries would be as safe there as anywhere in the world, were it not for the fact that they take the part of their supposed converts in regard to their relations with the civil power, and interfere in matters which really concern the civil government, and thereby come into collision with the authorities. I hope the Under Secretary of State will take this matter into consideration, and that the Government will instruct the missionaries to restrict themselves to matters of religion, and not to intervene in the matter of civil rights. You cannot turn Russia out of Manchuria. Past events have shown that such a thing as a rising is possible in China, and Russia is justified in putting an armed force there to protect her railways. She will probably be as unwilling to leave Manchuria as we are to evacuate Egypt. Russia cannot annex Manchuria; the population would be sufficient to prevent her conquering by force; but she may make Manchuria prosperous, and thereby acquire such an influence over the people as to give her a great hold. As to Niuchwang, that port is doomed. It was of importance before the construction of the Manchurian railway, but it is of little importance now.
    The Government should awaken to the importance of having a speedier communication with China by the sea route. The mail route by the Siberian railway will probably reach Peking in fourteen days, and Shanghai in eighteen, and if we are to maintain our position, it is necessary that we should do all we can to quicken the means of communication. We know that British shipowners enter into rings and combinations, so that the Government will have to ensure not only a speedy route, but also that the rates are not excessive, and that foreign enterprise in not allowed to beat us. I am not surprised at the success of Germany. The German ships are the fastest on the station, and the best equipped; they are always full, while the P. & O. boats are about one-third full. If we lose our prestige in commercial competition, I do not see what the Government can do to restore prosperity to men who throw it away themselves. The activity of the Germans will have its reward, and, so far as the German subsidies are concerned, I think

    223
    they are an immense advantage to this country, because they ensure usagainst the high rates charged by British shipowners. I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—at the end of the Question to add the words:
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that it is essential that adequate measures should be taken for the safeguarding and promotion of the commercial and political interests of the British Empire in both China and Persia."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said the history of China was extremely discreditable to this country, but much more discreditable to her allies, especially to Germany. In China, as elsewhere during the last forty years, Germany had been the disturber of the peace, and he should have thought that our experience there would have taught us never again to have anything to do with Germany. That lesson, however, had not been learnt, and we had entered into another adventure with that Power, with even more doubtful results. As to Wei-hai-Wei, that had been admitted to be a little mistake, made by the present Prime Minister during his apprenticeship to foreign affairs in the absence of Lord Salisbury; the mistake had been redressed as far as it could be by giving up the pretence of a naval station, and the sooner it was forgotten the better. The question of Persia was of the utmost importance to this country so long as we held India. Lord Curzon, with that amiable appreciation of everybody which always distinguished him, in his book Problems of the Fur East, had descanted on the absolute ignorance and incapacity of the House of Commons in regard to foreign affairs. But Lord Curzon had learnt many things since he went to India; he had learnt that the forward policy was a bad one, and would probably be ready to acknowledge now that the calling of attention in the House of Commons to matters connected with Persia was not wholly without advantage. Since Lord Curzon went to India tremendous changes had taken place in and about Persia, and it needed only a look at the map to realise the great importance of Persia to India.
    Persia had always been one of the most interesting countries of the East. She had
    224
    produced some of the greatest poets, some of the finest works of art, and some of the most marvellous manufactures of the East, but she had now reached that stage of decadence that her importance lay rather from the political than the artistic point of view. The importance of maintaining the independence and integrity of Persia had always been recognised. He still believed that as long as England maintained her predominance at sea she would always be more powerful in Persia than any other country. The heart of Persia could be got at through the Persian Gulf, and as long as we held the Arabian Sea, and had access to the Persian Gulf, if it came to a question of force, we should always be the "upper dog" in Persia. But in Persia it was particularly important that meantime we should obtain and retain "influence." Influence meant all sorts of things; in Persia especially it meant money; in short, it meant all that was summed up in the word "prestige." The House of Commons and the country had somehow been led to believe that England and Russia had an engagement to maintain the integrity and independence of Persia. That was not the case. No agreement, no engagement to that effect, existed. The only thing that existed was the expression, on the part of Russia, of "a sincere desire to maintain the independence and integrity of Persia." That desire was expressed in 1834, and nothing else or more, nor had anything else or more been expressed by Russia since then. It was true that, in 1888, Lord Salisbury did speak of an "engagement," but there was no such engagement, and what could have induced Lord Salisbury so to characterise the expression of a desire, he could not imagine. There was no treaty or conventional engagement whatever for the independence and integrity of Persia. That country had been, and was, the sport of diplomatic struggles between those who were endeavouring to secure predominance in Persia; and up to the present, especially lately, Russia had so bested us that even Lord Curzon, were he in the House, would probably be inclined to second the Amendment to the Address.
    The ignorance of the House of Commons, arose not from any indis-

    225
    position on the part of Members to inform themselves if they had the opportunity, but from the reticence and indisposition on the part of Ministers to give information, from the disposition to give information not always understood in the sense in which it was given, and the disposition to use words with great dialectical ability, so that they did not give exactly the impression with which they left the mind of the Under Secretary of State. So great was the preponderance of Russia that she had absolutely forbidden Persia to fly her own flag on the Caspian. The bordering Persian provinces of Ghilan and Mazanderan were almost absolutely Russian in every way, and the whole of Persia was becoming almost entirely under Russian influence. He thought that was largely our own fault. There were other matters. Hon. Members were all aware that foreign potentates were as proud of honours and distinctions as English nobles, and he did think that it was a very great pity when His Majesty the Shah was in this country that he was not accorded the honour which he was believed to desire. The result was that he and his suite went away disappointed and discontented, and went to Russia to make the best arrangement they could. But after the mischief had been done, and his arrangements made with Russia, it was discovered that there was no such objection as had been supposed to giving the Garter to a non-Christian sovereign, and then a special mission was sent to him with the Garter which had been withheld while he was here—sent when it was too late.
    As to railways, he believed it was a fact that there was an arrangement between Russia and Persia the practical effect whereof was that no one but a Russian could build railways in Persia. That was a very serious state of things, which ought not to occur in any country where they kept up an Embassy, and where they had, let him say, a most able Ambassador. The fault lay with the Government, and it was a most unfortunate thing that the English had been driven out of Persia as railway makers. As far as the military aspect of the question was concerned, he believed that the command of the sea would enable England to put more men there than Russia and Germany by land.
    He came now to the question of trade.
    226
    He held that trade itself in Persia was a secondary question, but influence went with trade, and influence was created by trade. Where they had British merchants and British interests well established, there they were likely to have more influence. As to trade with Persia, British trade had undoubtedly declined in the most alarming manner, and Russian trade had as greatly increased. He had asked the noble Lord on a former occasion if there was a commercial treaty between Russia and Persia, and he replied that he knew nothing about it at that time; he trusted he knew more about the matter now. He was told that it was one of the most tricky treaties that ever was made. It professed to give no more favoured treatment for Russian than English goods, but in fact all the favouritism was for Russia and none for England. There had been recently some strange and ominous Consular appointments, there had been also an importation of Belgian Custom-House officers, but no English; for in these days in Persia everything went to somebody else and never to a Briton. If a Russian could not be got a Belgian was appointed, and if they could not get a Belgian he supposed they would get a Venezuelan, but never an Englishman. He had drawn attention to these facts from time to time, and had asked questions as to the effect of this treaty on British trade; and recently it was acknowledged as fully as one expected an Under Secretary to acknowledge it, that this treaty was likely to do some injury to British trade, and the noble Lord was good enough to say that this matter was receiving and would receive the attention of the Government. He wanted to know how far that attention had gone. What had His Majesty's Government done in answer to this Russian commercial treaty? Had they done anything? Had they made a treaty or come to any agreement with Persia to be put upon the same terms as Russia, had they got a treaty as cleverly drawn as the Russian treaty, or had they been amused with mere nothings?
    He wished to know if the Government had submitted to the unfavourable position in which that treaty had placed English goods. He had been assured that the duties placed upon Indian tea

    227
    were such as to make it impossible to go on importing that tea into Persia. If that were true, so great was the importance of the trade in Indian tea that it would be a most serious matter. The Persians were very great tea drinkers, and if Indian tea was practically prohibited and entirely replaced by Russian tea that was very serious. He wanted to know what the Government had done. Had the noble Lord got a copy of the Russian commercial treaty, and would he lay it on the Table? And, secondly, what steps was the Government taking in order to secure the trade between India and Persia and between Great Britain and Persia? Had they taken any steps, and if they had, what were they? Those were the two special questions he wished to ask. He thought the noble Lord must feel that under the circumstances which had arisen now and promised to arise, and in view of the decrease of British trade and the corresponding decrease of British influence, that it was neither possible nor desirable that he should keep silent upon these points.
    *MR. KESWICKsaid the statements which were constantly being made as to the decline of our trade with the East were not entirely correct. Statistics proved that the volume of our commerce with the Far East had not diminished; but what had happened was that we had not been able to maintain that percentage of the entire trade—the enormous increase of which was one of the features of recent times—which was ours before foreign competition began. The opening of the Suez Canal, the introduction of telegraphy, the general advancement in the construction of steam-ships, the improvements in machinery, and above all, the extension to the Continent of Europe of the power of producing machinery which in the earlier stages the genius of British engineers had made almost exclusively English, had enabled Continental Powers and nations to take a share in a trade with which they were previously unacquainted. Our seafaring instincts had led us to extend our trade into the far regions of the earth, because we were the first to grasp what those foreign countries required, and for a
    228
    long period we possessed the trade of those countries. But with the opening of the Suez Canal there was an altered state of things. The great position which London occupied when goods had to be brought round by the Cape of Good Hope was entirely changed by the opening of the Suez Canal, and London was no longer the great depot from which the whole of Europe drew its supplies.
    He did not believe that our people were less enterprising, less energetic, or less desirous of accumulating fortunes than our forefathers; nor did he think that there had been any falling off in the desire of the mercantile community to promote the interests of the country while advancing their own individual interests. He regarded the recent commercial treaty between this country and China as most valuable in the interests of our trade. It was a treaty which had been formulated with great skill, evidently with immense patience, and an extraordinary amount of study of every feature connected with it, and every obstacle to the carrying out of the intentions of the parties to the treaty had been as far as practicable, guarded against.
    Reference had been made to native opium and salt not being included, but there were many other productions which could not possibly be included in the tariff connected with an independent country which collected its own taxes and was responsible for its own administration. It was absolutely impossible for any one Power to dictate to China what it should do in connection with its own native trade. As to Wei-hai-wei, he should deeply deplore its abandonment, for he regarded it as a most important position. He did not mean that money should be spent upon it immediately, but it was well to possess it, and to be able to make it an important naval or military station at any time, if necessary. Touching Persia, a country in which he took a great deal of interest, both commercially and otherwise, he suggested the great importance of the Government devoting extreme attention to our position there. There was a danger, and it was this. The people were intelligent, and the country only required good government in order to go ahead, but the Government of Persia was not equal to its duties and.

    229
    responsibilities, and a powerful Government like that of Russia could undoubtedly take advantage of the situation. It therefore became, in their own interest, a matter of extreme importance that great vigilance should be observed in matters affecting British influences and commercial interests in Persia.
    *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I am sure the House and the Government ought to be very grateful to my hon. friend who had just sat down, because, speaking as he does from a peculiar position of knowledge and experience of trade in the Far East, he had been able to inform the House both that the recent commercial treaty with China has met with the approval of himself and the commercial community, and also that the position of our trade in China is not so gloomy as some hon. Members would have us believe. Before I deal with China, if hon. Members will allow me, I will address myself to the other part of his Motion and deal with the affairs of Persia. Reference has been made to the difficulty which the Government find in opposing the text of this Amendment to the Address which the hon. Member has put upon the Paper. No doubt he asserts very little more than the truth, but I think the House is very well aware that it is the duty of a Government to resist an Amendment to the Address. I remember that last year when a similar Amendment was moved to the Address by a friend of the Government, we were equally bound to resist it upon that occasion. There is no change in our policy in Persia. I do not quite know why the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment thought it necessary to challenge our policy in Persia.
    *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Because it is passive instead of active.
    LORD CRANBORNE: So far as I am able to judge passing events, the circumstances have not changed in Persia to any great extent from the time when I spoke last year. We hold to the declarations I then made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. We see no reason whatever why our interests and those of Russia should clash
    230
    in Central Asia. The field is wide. The objects which we severally have in view are quite sufficient to occupy all the energies we can devote to them. There appears to be no reason in the world why Russia and ourselves should get in one another's way. But I agree with my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn that our position in regard to Persia is one of great strain. My hon. friend made a notable admission as coming from so candid a critic of the Government, for he pointed out that after all the position which our maritime ascendency gave us in the Gulf was so great that we might consider with comparative calmness the position of any other Power in those regions. If our position is materially strong, so is it strong by treaty. My hon. friend tried to persuade the House just now that the exchange of Notes under which, as we claim, Russia and Great Britain have mutually agreed to respect the integrity of Persia were so many cobwebs, that they had no value and no validity whatever, and that, as a matter of fact, from his inspection of the words of the text of these notes they do not amount to an engagement at all.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They amount to a sincere desire and no more.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: My hon. friend is an authority on many things; in fact there is hardly anything on which the House would not be prepared to believe him an authority; but I do not think he is an authority on diplomatic English.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Or French?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Well, or even diplomatic French, and I do say that all those who are experts in the science of diplomacy have recognised, and always must recognise, that the terms of the Notes which were exchanged between Great Britain and Russia amount to a mutual engagement to respect the integrity of Persia. As far as I know, the Russian Government, like our own, have never attempted or desired to repudiate the interpretation which had continually been placed upon those Notes—the interpretation which was placed by the late Foreign Secretary of this country, placed by the representatives of the Govern-

    231
    ment in this House on more than one occasion in the most public manner possible, and never called in question until my hon. friend spoke. A part from that general treaty position, we have a strong case. My hon. friend, for example, spoke of the railway situation in Persia. It is true that the Russians have certain rights in respect of railway construction in Persia; so have we. We have the right, when railways are constructed in the north of Persia, to construct a railway in the south.
    I turn to another part of Persia—the eastern frontier. Last year I reminded the House and the country that we thought it to be our duty to maintain our position in various parts of Persia, and especially among others in those provinces which border on our own frontier. Any one who has watched recent events, will recognise that the presence of a certain Commission which has been sent to that part of the world had demonstrated, if it required demonstration, that our power and position must be seriously reckoned with on the south - eastern frontier of Persia. In the provinces which border on the Persian Gulf, in the same way we have treaty rights of great importance; for we have the engagements of the Persian Government not to pledge the Customs of southern Persia. It will be seen that, when we come to examine the subject, in many directions our position is very strong. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn has referred to our commercial policy. We are pursuing in Persia, as we do everywhere else, a policy of commercial development. But before I say a word upon that, I must refer to the observations of my hon. friend and others in respect to the Russian commercial treaty with Persia. There is no doubt of the fact that there is a commercial treaty between Russia and Persia, and I am afraid that that treaty is so constructed as more or less to hamper the trade of the British Empire with Persia. We took very serious note of that. We have made strong observations to the Persian Government, and we have given certain instructions to our representative at Teheran. On the present occasion I am not going further; but I hope within a very short time to make a fuller statement as to the
    232
    result of these representations and instructions than I can do at the present moment.
    The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke of roads. I think the road of which he spoke is really in working order. Besides that, there is an important concession, which has hitherto been held by the Imperial Bank of Persia, with which I know the hon. Gentleman is familiar; well that has entered, as we hope, on a new chapter, and it is anticipated that the concession will be fruitful before long. There are certain Customs difficulties which have arisen on the Karun river attracting some attention. Our diplomacy, I am glad tosay, has been able to overcome those obstacles, and, to a large extent, the old state of things under which it has not been necessary to break bulk as complained of by the merchants has been re-established. Lastly, our Government have thought it right to despatch a commercial mission to Persia, which has for its object the duty of investigating the commercial possibilities of Persia and the openings which the Persian market, properly studied, might be able to afford for the development of British trade. The hon. Gentleman has called that a passive policy. How much does the hon. Member expect the Government to do in twelve months? I do not say it is a hasty policy, but it is certainly not a passive policy. The House may believe me that in dealing with the very delicate questions which undoubtedly present themselves to us in Persia, a hasty policy would be a profound mistake. A firm, active, moderate, temperate policy, and, above all, not a hasty policy, is that which His Majesty's Government desire to pursue.
    I turn to the other branch of the hon. Member's Amendment which deals with China. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not go back right to the beginning. I know that it is very difficult for an hon. Gentleman who, like himself, is familiar with Chinese questions. to abstain from carrying the House back to the earlier controversies in which we have been engaged in that country. Things are not so bad as the hon. Member has stated.
    *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I quoted your own statistics.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman carefully selected those statistics—naturally enough. There is. however, the broad fact that during the troubles in china in the last few years the proportion of British trade to other trade has hardly diminished at all. Upon the whole, the bulk of trade has greatly increased. I do not mean to say that other countries have not also had their share in the improvement of trade. The hon. Member for Lanark said that while formerly the German trade at Shanghai had been 3 per cent., it was now 17 per cent. of the whole. But did the hon. Member really expect that the trade of a great commercial country like Germany would permanently remain at the figure of 3 per cent.? Does the hon. Member think it unreasonable, or anything of which this country ought to be greatly afraid, if, with all the energy and skill which German commercial interests can put forward, they have increased their trade during the last few years from 3 to 17 per cent.? I should think that our trade at Shanghai was probably well over 50 per cent. As to the commercial treaty, I do not propose to go into wearisome details. Our reliance upon it depends on the treaty's own merits. It's most important clause is, of course, not effective until the other Powers accept a similar provision with China. I mean the clause which abolishes the oppressive inland taxation. But what we rely upon is that other commercial Powers will, like ourselves, be convinced, as no doubt they will be convinced, of the superiority of the improvement which China has been induced to accept in its fiscal policy, and that, being so convinced, other Powers will themselves accept a similar provision.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Have any of the Powers accepted it?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: No, Sir; I do not think that any other Power has as yet accepted the commercial treaty. As to the position at Niuchwang, the Russian Government has not at present altogether removed their authority from Niuchwang. But they have promised to do so, and the period by which they engaged to evacuate that part of
    234
    Manchuria to which Niuchwang belongs does not expire until the middle of April, so that it would be premature to make any observations on their continued position there at present. I may remark that the Imperial Customs at Niuchwang are under Sir Robert Hart, and the native Customs are collected by men under the same authority; and therefore, there is no very great ground of complaint for the position which now exists at Niuchwang. I have nothing to report about the railway siding at Tientsin. As the hon. Member is aware, the question was referred to arbitration, and the award has not yet been received. As to Shanghai, I do not think we have any reason to be displeased with what has taken place in regard to the evacuation of Shanghai about the end of last year. We did not agree in that respect, it is perfectly true, with the German Government. Our belief in the open door is deeply founded, but it does not date from the moment when it was thought advisable to evacuate Shanghai. It dated from long before that; and we saw no reason at all why the withdrawal of our troops from Shanghai should be made the occasion of any fresh declaration on the subject. Such a declaration had the appearance, as Lord Lansdowne wrote, of being directed against one Power only, and that Power Great Britain.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley has said the that German Government made certain arrangements with the Government of China, and that those arrangements remained, inspite of the attitude we adopted. Well, we do not recognise those arrangements, and it will be seen from the Bluebook that the Chinese Government themselves assure us that they will allow nothing that had passed to prejudice the rights of Great Britain in the Yang-tze Valley. So that if we differ from Germany, as Powers do differ from time to time, we have no reason to be in any way displeased with the results of circumstances as they turned out in November of last year.
    As to the question of Consular jurisdiction in Shanghai, I am glad to say that a modus vivendi has been agreed upon between the Powers. I hesitate to give it to the House at such an hour of the night, because it is rather a complicated arrangement, and it will be better to communicate the terms by way of answer

    235
    to a Question. But the general effect of it is this. In any criminal prosecution where the prosecutor and defendant are both Chinese, the trial will take place in the concession where the crime was committed. Where the defendant is Chinese and the prosecutor is a foreigner, then the trial will take place in the concession, either international or foreign, to which the foreigner belonged. There is every reason to hope that, when the proper regulations for carrying out the arrangements have been agreed to, a way out of the difficulty will have been found.
    As to the indemnity, I have already told the House on more than one occasion that His Majesty's Government cannot admit that the indemnity was anything but a gold debt. It was definitely arranged to be so in the protocol, and we must insist that it should be recognised by the Chinese Government as a gold debt. But we do sympathise with the difficulties which the great fall in silver has thrown upon the Chinese Government, and, as I have before told the House, we shall be very glad if, in some way or other, some mitigation—as, for example, some postponement of the payments which are due—can be given to China in order to assist her to meet her difficulties. But the one concession which we will not make is to admit that the debt, which it was agreed should be a gold debt, should become a silver debt.
    There is only one other matter to which reference has been made—the position of Wei-hai-wei. As my hon. friend has pointed out, we have not abandoned Wei-hai-wei. It is true that for the moment we have not continued to treat it as a naval base; but I do not think the House should conclude that we will never treat it as a naval base. I do not say that we shall never treat Wei-hai-wei as a naval base. Circumstances may alter, and we may find it necessary in the future to alter the provisional decision that has been come to. But my reply to the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and my hon. friend behind me, is that Wei-hai-wei is no longer so necessary to us as it formerly was. And the reason for that is that owing to the policy of His Majesty's Government we have enormously strengthened our position in China by the Japanese agreement, and that we are in a situation now, at least, which makes it quite possible, at any
    236
    rate temporarily, to dispense with Wei-hai-wei as a naval base. Under these circumstances I think that the House will recognise that the taunts levelled against the Government in respect to this matter are undeserved. We have attempted in our Chinese policy, in the same spirit as I have tried to describe our policy in Persia, to study the interests of this country with moderation and firmness; and we believe that, on the whole, the Government have deserved and will receive the support of the House and the country.
    *MR. NORMAN: I must be allowed to say that a more unsatisfactory reply to great and wide-reaching questions of foreign affairs I have never heard than that which has fallen from the noble Lord. The same questions have been previously put by my hon. friend beside me, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and by myself, and precisely the same answers, couched almost in the same words, have been made by the noble Lord. In the discussion of foreign affairs in this House we are really like the countryman with the claret, we do not get any "forrarder." The defence which the noble Lord put forward is ludicrous. He says that our policy has not been hasty. Good heavens! has anybody ever charged the present Government with being hasty in their foreign policy, except perhaps where Germany is concerned? The noble Lord says that there has been no change in our policy in Persia. That is precisely what everybody complains of; and no more fatal condemnation could have come from the Opposition side of the House. The noble Lord says in all we have done in Persia there in nothing hostile to Russia. We wish that there had been something hostile or friendly to Russia in it. We wish that there had been anything in regard to Russia rather than this constant dead level of shilly-shally, and constant drift, with no possibility of knowing where this country stands really until we see it in black and white, in a treaty between Russia and some other nation to our disadvantage. The noble Lords gets behind an exchange of Notes, which dates from 1838 or 1839. He says the agreement in this exchange of Notes was never called in question. He means that Russia had never called it in question. Why should Russia call it in question?

    237
    She has got the right to build railways and has obtained concessions to build a road to the capital of Persia itself on which she will run motor cars. Our position, says the noble Lord, is very strong! Is it respectful to this House, after all that has taken place in Persia, to simply fob us off with the remark that our position in Persia is very strong, when every human being outside the Treasury Bench, and when even one noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, who has only recently come there, knows that it is very weak?
    LORD CRANBORNE: I was only repeating, with cordial assent, what the hon. Member for King's Lynn has just said.
    *MR. NORMAN: I may be very dense and obtuse, but I did not gather that there was any cordial agreement between the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the noble Lord. The noble Lord admits frankly that this Commercial Treaty between Persia and Russia hampers our trade seriously, but then what have we done? We have taken a strong note of it! We have been taking strong notes in every part of the world ever since this Government came into power, and I think that we are likely to keep on doing so, and not likely to do anything more. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this discussion drew a dismal picture of Russia coming down to the Persian Gulf. I find myself in a small minority in this House on this question, but I hope it is a growing one. The hon. Member spoke of the terrible things that would happen when Russia got down to the Persian Gulf. Well, that is, of course, as may be. Russia coming down to the Persian Gulf would be a matter of arrangement. It might possibly be a matter of taking strong note of it, but it ought to be also a matter of bargain, to settle under what conditions and circumstances Russia would come down there. But without going into that, I would repeat my opinion, and that of other people, that our relations with Russia should be conducted face to face in frank, direct arguments and diplomatic discussion; and that we should tell Russia what is our irreducible minimum of national and international necessity, and that we should learn from her what is her irreducible minimum, and
    238
    see in what way we could harmonise these two, and seek to prove in reality, and most leave it in the empty words of the Prime Minister, that there is room enough in Asia for both nations. The Government is simply saying to Russia, "Hands off, hands off," and getting no "forrarder "; and next Russia will be there, and the noble Lord will take a strong note! The hon. Member for King's Lynn says that no matter who is inland in Persia, we shall always be the "upper dog" there if we have command of the sea. I can only say that anyone who believes that will believe anything. I think that is a most mistaken view, and that whoever gets possession of Persia by land, and builds railways, will gain the trade of Persia.
    I pass for a moment to the question of the indemnity to be paid by China. I am extremely sorry, and I think every friend of China must have been extremely sorry, and anyone who has studied the financial question of the Far East, must be very sorry to hear the extremely unsympathetic, and, if I may say so, empty form of words with which the noble Lord dismissed the subject of indemnity. The schedules in which the conditions of the indemnity were first laid down specified taels. Now, a tael is a piece of silver. It is not a figure of varying value, as we are accustomed to look at values in a newspaper. It is an actual, solid thing, and when a Chinaman has got to pay so many taels it is so many taels of solid silver. At the time the indemnity was fixed the gold price of the tael was 3s. It is now 2s. 3d., and every penny of the fall in the price of silver means from 13 to 15 millions of taels extra payment of indemnity by the Chinese Government. I ask, could anything be more unfair to them? This fall in the price of silver has followed from causes with which the Chinese Government have had nothing to do. As an Englishman, I am ashamed that the only Government in the world which has been enlightened enough to see the cruelty and injustice of such an arrangement is the Government of the United States. I was hopeful that our own Government would have seen it first. It must be remembered that the people who really pay these millions of taels are not the Chinese Government, but the population of China. That

    239
    population has already 90,000,000 of taels extra to pay. Not only that, there is that peculiar thing in China called the "squeeze," because the collection of the indemnity will go down through official after official to the people whose unit is not a tael, or a franc, but a very small debased coin called a "cash." When the lowest collector of all comes to the poor masses of the people, do you suppose that he will collect only the sum required by the Government? Not at all; he will insist on taking not one "cash," but ten "cash," and he will say that it is all the fault of the wretched foreigners. Everybody who knows China will tell you that that is what will happen; and given a bad spring, a dry season, and other concomitant causes, I do not hesitate to say that we shall have a vastly greater anti-foreign rising in China than that which was recently put down with so little credit, but with so much difficulty.
    But there is another matter more important than any of those I have mentioned, and that is the treaty negotiated by Sir James Mackay. I desire to speak with all due respect of Sir James Mackay, who has formerly rendered great services in Imperial financial negotiations; but I do not think that that gentleman knew very much about China. It is one characteristic of the present Government that when they send someone to China, they send a man who has not had any experience of the country. At any rate, Sir James Mackay got his treaty signed, but it was signed by some Chinese officials—I am speaking within my own knowledge, so far as it can be within the knowledge of anybody who was not on the spot at the time—because they knew that it was never going to be ratified. The Likin or inland taxation of China is a vested interest compared with which all the vested interests in a country like this are things that could be swept away by a breeze. To abolish Likin in china would be nothing less than a revolution. I do not think you can find anyone, except perhaps the hon. Member for Epsom, who believes in the reality of this treaty negotiated by Sir James Mackay.
    LORD CRANBORNE: I think the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the
    240
    Government were in close contact with the representatives of the commercial interests and with all classes who do business with China; and so far as I know, the treaty was received with universal approval by everyone.
    *MR. NORMAN: I happen to know certain commercial men in England who are in constant touch with China, and they do not believe in the treaty. But there are Chambers of Commerce which know much more about China than the Chambers of Commerce in this country. The Shanghai Chamber of Commerce may be said to know a little more about the prospects of the treaty than any Chamber of Commerce here, and I believe that Chamber expressed an adverse opinion to the treaty by a majority of seven. I gather that the noble Lord was not aware of that, and his quotation in favour of English opinion is not conclusive on this matter. Is the noble Lord also aware that a large number of Chambers of Commerce in the United States have passed resolutions urging the American Government not to assent to these new relations with China on this subject; and is he aware that the Japanese Government are entirely opposed to this treaty? If not, he will soon become aware of these facts. Is he aware that quite recently—for so I am informed by commercial men who are in a position to know — upwards of £3,000,000 worth of goods have been sent out to Shanghai, Hankow, Tientsin, and other places in China? Does he think that these orders would have been sent out if 7½ per cent. import duty was going to be added, with entire uncertainly about Likin? I should be very glad indeed if the Likin could be abolished in China, and I range myself in that respect with the hon Member for Epsom. But the treaty has not yet been ratified by any other Government. It is not going to be ratified in its present form. It is a failure, as everybody in China admits and regrets; and yet the noble Lord comes down to the House and defends this treaty as if it were a living, vital, international document for the advancement of British trade! This is a painful example of the way in which foreign affairs are treated by the Government in this House. We are all grateful to the noble Lord for the courtesy and

    241
    diligence with which he treats these subjects; and I think it would be unwise, and unfair to those whose interests we represent, if we did not say that the noble Lord, in replying on this and other questions, often speaks without the information and knowledge which alone can make his statements valuable.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not desire to go at any length into this subject. The discussion can only be carried on under considerable restrictions, because the statement of the policy of the Government, while being so extended in scope, is so restricted in details that it is impossible to examine it very closely. The question of our trade with China has been discussed very considerably in the House several times, and one of the points presented with great force by the hon. Member for Barnsley was the kaleidoscopic changes that have taken place in the manner in which agreements in reference to China are regarded. I will not go into that question, and I have no wish to speak in a pessimistic tone in regard to the prospects of our trade with China. I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom that we should not regard with jealousy the progress of the trade of other countries as measured by percentages. We need not be alarmed at the percentages. We need not be alarmed at the percentages of the trade we should look at; the question is whether the total amount of our own trade is diminishing or increasing, If the trade of other countries, it does not follow that it is increasing at our expense.
    The most important recent event is the new commercial treaty. There are differences of opinion with regard to the merits of that treaty, but I freely admit that if that treaty secures entire immunity from Likin, it will be the great practical advantage to trade which has been held up as the great object of the British Government. But are we going to secure this? The hon. Member for Epsom spoke of the abolition as secured; but he must know the vast difference between what is secured in China on paper and what is secured in practice. What the treaty does is to propose to secure the abolition; and it seems to me that the battle has only just begun when immunity is secured on paper, and the
    242
    question is whether the ingenuity of the Chinese, and the incentive to every Chinese official to keep it, will succeed in cheating the treaty and getting round its provisions. Just now China has to meet heavier expenses than she expected in connection with the indemnity, and that fact alone seems to be an ill-omened augury of what the result of the treaty is likely to be.
    We have continually had held out by the present Government prospects of advantages to be secured in China. Some years ago, when great anxiety was expressed in the House, and Lord Curzon was Under Secretary, it was stated that arrangements had been made by which British steamers would visit riverside towns in China. The House was pleased at that time. We know what has happened since, but the statement was a relief to the anxiety, and the House relapsed into satisfaction, but things went from bad to worse. The House was also pleased at that time to be told that we had secured our position more than ever in the Yang-tze region. Our position in the Yang-tze region is no better today, however, than before these assurances were given. On the contrary, competition is stronger, and the rivalry—apparently exceptional and designed rivalry—on the part of other nations is more marked than ever. In some other regions, such as Manchuria, the prospective British position has suffered. what is to be feared with regard to China is that we are continually securing paper advantages which do no more than float on the stream of events. The mention of Wei-hai-wei almost always raises a smile in the House now. The noble Lord told us the necessity for Wei-hai-wei had ceased to exist

    243
    for the present. It used to be said Wei-hai-wei was the resort of diplomacy in despair. Now that diplomacy has ceased to be in despair it is no longer of importance. I have always held that Wei-hai-Wei was not the best choice we could have made. If we were to have a second naval base it ought to have been Chusan. It has been said, I think it was by the hon. Member for Epsom, that the choice of Wei-hai-wei did not prejudice that other selection on a future occasion. The right to select Chusan may remain in theory, but everybody knows that when we selected our second naval base it meant practically that we could not have another naval base in the same region.
    The Persian question, however, raises more apprehension than the Chinese question at present. The noble Lord has said there is no change in the policy of the Government in regard to Persia. Was there no change of policy in any other part of the world with regard to Persia? Are things as they were four or five years ago?
    LORD CRANBORNE: I said there was no change in our policy since I declared it from these Benches a year ago.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Some other things have changed during the past year. The policy of the Government is, I think, defined as respecting the integrity of Persia. Persia is nominally an independent State; but the financial bonds are being drawn closer around Persia every year, and the independence of Persia is really slipping away. The independence of Persia is a Phrase. It is becoming less independent every year; and when the noble Lord tells us that we and the Russian Government are equally bound, and remain
    244
    bound year after year, to respect the integrity of Persia, I fear this means that we are bound to respect a vanishing quantity, and that thet ime may come when, if we are restricting our policy to respecting the integrity of Persia, we shall find ourselves respecting nothing at all.
    The same process is going on with regard to the railways. Russia has certain rights, and the House is told that we have certain rights also; but the time may come when we shall find that Russia has the railways and we are left in the lurch.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Or vice versa.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman says "or vice versa", but our experience in China in regard to these things is that as far as we are concerned it has always been versa rather than vice.
    Then with regard to our commerce in Persia, I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton did not quote the noble Lord quite accurately. The noble Lord stated that a commercial treaty had been made which he apprehended might prejudice British commerce in Persia, and my hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton said the noble Lord "had taken a strong note of it." I think the actual words were, "he had taken a serious note and made strong observations to the Persian Government.
    LORD CRANBORNE: And given instructions to the Minister at Teheran.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I believe that would be included in the strong observations. The noble Lord said he expected to be able to declare considerable results to the House at some later date. Strong

    245
    observations used to be addressed in similar circumstances to the Chinese Government, but they never produced much result, and there is a great parallel between the position in China then, when we were on the eve of recent developments, and that in Persia to-day. I am very doubtful whether the strong observations to the Persian Government will be more productive of result than the strong observations to the Chinese Government. The observations in this case ought to be addressed really to the Russian Government direct, not with any provocative object, but with the object of arriving at an understanding. I hold, as strongly as any one can hold, that there is room for both Russia and us in Asia; but we must agree; or we must make up our minds what is to be the essential minimum of our interests. There is room in the Atlantic for all the ocean-going steamers, but they find it convenient to arrange with one another what routes they shall take; and, unless we are in communication with Russia as to the spheres in which we shall operate in Asia, there will always be a danger of conflict.
    Russia seems undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn said, to be carrying on a process of absorption in Persia, and it is being done by what, I think, a French writer has called peaceful penetration. It is not for those on this side of the House, who believe that a friendly understanding with Russia is possible, to impress on the Government how much they should give Russia to understand we are prepared any jealousy or regret on our part. We on this side have consistently refrained from pressing on the Govern-
    246
    ment any forward or provocative policy. What I personally would like to see done is this. I would adopt the phrase of the Government themselves and say, with regard to this part of the world, that we want no new territory. I would gofurther, and say: We do not want to extend our sphere of influence, but we want it made perfectly clear what our interests are, and that the Government shall make up their minds as to what are the needs of our strategical position, and what the essential minimum of our interests. What we are afraid of is the possibility or our finding the situation changed by-and-bye, and that not to our advantage. All I would press on the noble Lord is this, that things are changing rapidly in that part of the world. Russia is expanding, and she means to expand further. There is time now, while Russia is still in the north of Persia, for us to make up our minds what is the essential minimum of our interests in that part of the world, and we should be frank with Russia with regard to it. I would like the noble Lord to say definitely on some future occasion whether the Government has adopted the position taken up by the hon. Member for King's Lynn—namely, that our strategical position is secured by maintaining supremacy at sea, and whether the policy of the Government with regard to Persia is to be restricted to maintaining what is essential to our strategical position. I hope that while there is time the Government will consider carefully what is our essential minimum of interest in that part of the world, and that they will secure that minimum by directly communicating with the Russian Government, and not by making strong observations to the Persian Government.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: After the statement we have had from the Government, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    THE UNEMPLOYED.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I rise for the purpose of moving the following Amendment to the Address—"But we desire humbly to express our regret that your Majesty's advisers have not seen fit to recommend the inclusion therein of such measures or measure as would have empowered the Government and local administrative authorities to acquire land for cultivation, and to set up undertakings whereby men and women unable to find employment in the ordinary labour market might be profitably set to work." First, I must be allowed very briefly to put the Housein possession of several facts directly bearing upon this question of the unemployed. From returns supplied by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, and published in the Labour Gazette issued this month, I find that in 225 unions with a total membership of 547,000 men, there are 27,685 men returned as unemployed—that is to say that, practically speaking, 5.5 per cent. of these trades unions are out of employment. A year ago I should say the Proportion was 4.4 per cent. But I would not have the House assume that this 27,658 men represent the total number lacking employment. These figures refer exclusively to certain trades unions, and it is well understood that the unions which pay out-of-work benefits, and which are exclusively confined to skilled labour, and
    248
    artisans, represent nothing like the high percentage of unemployment in periods of trade depression which obtain in less skilled trades. I estimate that the total number of wage earners in the country is 12,000,000, and if we deduct from that figure the number employed in domestic service, as agricultural labourers, and in the carrying trade, employments which are steady and regular, there are left, I estimate, 8,000,000 workers who are always affected by a depression in trade such as now exists. If we assume that the percentage of the unemployed among these workers is the same as it is known to be in the skilled artisan trades—namely, 5.5 per cent.—it gives a total now out of employment of over 400,000. I say deliberately that that is the minimum at which the number in Great Britain can be placed at the present time. There are over 400,000 working men and women, with all their helpless dependents, suffering hardship in consequence of the lack of employment. If that be so, and if my figures are only approximately accurate, it surely represents a social question of sufficient magnitude to arrest the serious attention of this House and of the country.
    I have been at some trouble to ascertain what is the condition of employment in the different centres of industry up and down the country. In response to circulars I sent out some time ago to trades councils and large unions, I learn that the unemployed in Stockton are between 4,000 and 5,000, in Hull between 3,000 and 4,000, in West Hartlepool 5,000, and in Middlesbrough 2,000. In Leeds, where a labour bureau has been opened, the number who have signed the books is 3,662, this representing not the total number out of work, but the proportion who have reached the limits of subsis-

    249
    tence and are willing to accept work of any kind rather than continue the fruitless search for work in their own employment. In Bradford 1,100 have signed the registers of the labour bureaux. In Manchester, according to the trades council, the police report that, all sleeping accommodation being filled, every night 2,000 houseless wanderers sleep in brickfields and in the open air. In Glasgow, according to the Herald, 20 percent. of the men employed in the Clyde shipyards are out of employment, and this figure was given not to magnify the seriousness of the unemployed problem, but in order to justify the employers in reducing the wages. Now I wish to ask what is being done to meet the necessities of this case. Everyone will admit that to working men dependent upon a weekly wage deprivation of employment is a very serious matter indeed.
    First I may draw attention to what the large trades unions of the country are doing in order to cope with this great evil. I have collected returns from those unions which pay out-of-work benefits, and before quoting them I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the out-of-work benefit is not continued for an indefinite period, for if it were it would be impossible for the unions to continue to exist. Now, the carpenters and joiners pay an out-of-work benefit of 10s. per week for the first twelve weeks, and of 6s. for the next twelve weeks. The friendly society of the Ironfounders pays 9s. the first thirteen weeks, 8s. the second thirteen weeks, and 6s. the third thirteen weeks. The boiler makers pay sums varying from 5s. 6d. to 11s. 6d. per week for fourteen
    250
    weeks in each year. The railway servants pay from 10s. to 12s. for ten weeks, and half the amount for another the weeks. The Durham Miners' Association pays 10s. weekly for about eighteen months, while the engineers pay 10s. for fourteen weeks, and 6s. so long as the man remains out of employment. But, after all, these payments represent little more than the average rent of a working man's house. In our big centres the rents vary from 8s. to 12s. weekly, and even for 12s. you only get a house of very inferior quality in parts of this City of London. The total sum spent last year by the trades union movement on out-of-work relief was £265,000, and that fact should be remembered to its credit at a time like the present.
    In speaking of house rents I am dealing with matters concerning which I have knowledge. For very inconvenient houses, badly situated and containing very limited accommodation, 8s. per week is charged in the East End of London, and if the accommodation is at all decent the rents go up as high as 12s. weekly. I ask hon. Gentlemen to accept this, not as a mere expression of opinion on my part, but as an actual statement of fact.
    Now, for one moment may I turn to the question as to who these unemployed are, because there is a disposition in many quarters to make it appear that people out of work are generally so through some fault or defect of their own, that they are drunkards or incapables, or men who are lazy and do not want employment. I would remind the House that even admitted, as I admit, that incapable men and drunken men are the first to be dismissed when trade becomes depressed,

    251
    the reason for their being dismissed is not that they are incapable or drunken, but because there is no longer any demand for their labour. There is not the same amount of work to be performed, and when there is less work to be done, less men are required to do it. If every one of these men was perfect at his trade, sober, and diligent, the same number would still require to be dismissed when trade became depressed and orders fell off. I trust that we shall not hear in this House what is so painful when we see it stated in the Press, or hear it asserted on the platform, that the men are out or work owing to some defect of their own. They are unemployed because trade is depressed. If it be the case that among the unemployed are to be found the wastrels and outcasts of society, who are not capable of performing an honest day's work, they are more to be pitied than blamed. They are the victims of our industrial system, and I would say to those who blame them, parodying the words of Tennyson's "Poacher's Wife,"
    "that had your sons been brought up as they were your sons might have been the same."
    But I would further point out that if we have to select the fit from the unfit, the willing from the lazy, there is only one means of accomplishing it, and that is to provide an opportunity for all willing to perform useful work. When we have that test we shall then be able to weed out the fit from the unfit, the willing from the lazy. I hope I shall not weary the House if I insist upon the importance of this question to the nation as a whole. I am not casting any reflections on individuals, but I know it must be difficult for an average Member of Parliament even to think himself into the place of an unemployed workman. Even in a time
    252
    of good trade the income is barely sufficient—seldom more in the best of cases—than to keep things going. Most hon. Members are aware that there are from 28 per cent. to30 per cent. of our working-class population which even in times of commercial prosperity, when work is plentiful and wages are good, live below the poverty line, not because they are drunkards, but because the total income of the household is not sufficient to provide the commonest necessaries of life. It is easy to understand that in such cases no resources can be accumulated to fall back upon in times of depression. Take the case of the men on the Clyde. Fifty or sixty skilled artisans are cast adrift in one week. They begin tramping from workshop to workshop, and from town to town, insearch of employment, but with all their skill and with all their opportunities they are not allowed to earn their bread by honest labour. Meantime, the resources of the homes are dwindling, the savings are being spent, and the furniture and clothing are being sold or pawned to keep the homes going. By-and-bye there comes a time—it has come to hundreds of thousands—when the children cry for bread, and when there is no bread with which to still their cries. I ask hon. Members to remember that when a man gets to that position and finds himself an incumbrance upon the earth, a social and industrial outcast, he loses heart and hope; he sinks in the social scale, and becomes the wastrel whom all men malign. I trust, therefore, the House will, in view of the importance of this question, not merely to the men out of work, but to the community as a whole, take serious heed of the matter, in order to devise some means whereby to provide every willing Englishman with an

    253
    opportunity of working for his living. There are two methods by which this evil requires to be combated. First of all, some means is required whereby the amount of work will be increased. If we could increase the expenditure of the nation, work would be increased, the labour market would be brisk, and the unemployed would be absorbed. When a reduction of wages is advocated as a means of tiding the country over a period of industrial depression, we are, thereby only increasing the evil from which we are suffering. The more wages are reduced the less there is to spend, and the less there is to spend the less demand there is for commodities, and the greater the number of people out of employment. I submit, therefore, that in order to permanently remedy this oft-recurring depression in trade and its consequence, shortage of employment, we must organise industry in such a manner as to increase the spending power of the community, and thereby increase the amount of work to be performed. That leads us straight to the main questionf There can be no permanent increase in the work of the nation without a large addition to the quantity of land under cultivation.
    My second remedy is, some form of work which will be elastic enough to be able to absorb in times of depression the so-called surplus population for which there is no room in the ordinary labour market. That points to great public works, such as the making of embankments, the reclamation of foreshores, and the reafforesting of large tracts of our country. I will deal first of all with public works, and I would remind the House of Commons that the Board of Trade already possesses very large powers under the Foreshores Act of 1866 for dealing with this most important matter. I understand that the Board of Trade could at once begin to reclaim practically every foreshore in the country where the waters of the sea have invaded the land unduly. As a matter of fact, a beginning was made in this direction some time ago, but owing to the opposition of landlords with foreshore rights, the work had to be given up after only having been partially undertaken. As an illustration of what could be done in
    254
    the matter of reclaiming land from the sea, let me quote two instances from well-known experiments carried out in Holland. The Haarlem Lake was reclaimed and 46, 000 acres were added to the arable land of Holland, and now the Government of Holland propose to reclaim from the Zuyder Zee a million acres by the same means. It that can be done in Holland it can also be done in England. The need for it is quite as great here as it is there, and the opportunities for carrying it through are equally available. May I remind the House that, according to a scheme prepared by an eminent engineer, 200,000 acres might be reclaimed from the Wash alone, if properly undertaken. That would mean employment for 10,000 men for about fifteen years. The need is great and the powers exist, and pressure should be applied to the Board of Trade to put its powers into operation. One small experiment was tried at the beginning of the last century, by which 60,000 acres were reclaimed at a total expenditure of £580,000, and now land, which was formerly swept by the sea, is covered with cornfields and comfortable farmsteads, which bring in a rental of £110,000 a year, leaving and annual surplus over and above the cost of reclamation of some £81,000. Therefore I am entitled to say that the reclamation of foreshore is not a theoretical, but a practical, question, which can be undertaken by the nation, and which would add to the estates of the nation, because the land reclaimed would be the property of the nation, and its benefits would not pass into the pockets of private individuals.
    As to reafforesting, I would remind the House that 90 per cent. of the timber used in this country, in our mines, and for pulp in our paper mills, is imported from abroad. According to the Board of Trade Returns, the value of the timber imported last year was £5,435,000, and I submit respectfully that every stick of that timber could be grown within our own shores with great advantage to ourselves. In this case also we have a special report of a Departmental Committee to guide us. According to it there are 20,000,000

    255
    acres of land lying absolutely waste and bare at the present moment, in many cases not even carrying sheep, which might be utilised for the purpose of wood-growing. An experiment on these lines tree-planting and afforesting, has been tried in Germany, with the result that after paying all costs, including interest on expenditure, a clear profit of 38s. per annum per acre remains, and that upon land which previously only produced 4s. an acre for sporting purposes. Here I submit also there is much profitable work to be done, which would employ thousands and tens of thousands if properly undertaken. It is a constant matter of complaint, and justly so, that in matters of wood and other essentials for our industries, this country is dependent upon other nations. Here is a means by which that dependence could be lessened and the wood required produced at home, work being given to the unemployed and a substantial profit made on the transaction. With these inducements it is difficult to understand why there should be any hesitation on the part of the Governments to embark on work of this kind.
    Now I come to what I term the permanent remedy for this question of the unemployed. I need scarcely remind the House that, belonging as I do to the economic school of thought designated Socialism, there can be, in my opinion, no final solution of the unemployed problem as long as production for profit continues to dominate our commercial system. I will not, however, propound a Socialist solution of the question. I am more concerned with finding some practical reform which will benefit the unemployed. There is one step which though for differing reasons might perhaps meet with acceptance on both sides of the House, and that is that the Local Authorities should be employed to acquire land for cultivation. Here, as in the case of timber, there is room for great development in the matter of producing things which the nation requires, and for which it is now dependent on other nations. The total cultivable area of Great Britain is just over 36,000,000 acres, and out of that total the amount under cultivation is just over 16,000,000. That is to say, that more than half of the cultivable land of the country is not
    256
    being put to anything like a profitable use. And whilst that is so our imports of food stuffs increase year by year. At the beginning of the last century the bulk of the food required by the people of England was produced at home. Now, after a century of progress, our of five loaves consumed four are baked from foreign-grown wheat. The importance of this question is now beginning to be realised. As long as this country is dependent for its food supplies upon foreign nations, we are under a menace which cannot be overestimated, and which may produce the most serious results. Therefore, I submit that if some means could be devised where-by the quantity of land under cultivation could be all increased, the quantity of produce, from gardens, dairies, farmyards and corn-fields would be all increased, and our dependence on foreign nations would be lessened, and we should be doing more for the prosperity of the country than by any number of filibustering expeditions for the extension of our Empire.
    The first essential of Empire is a sound heart at home, and so long at this unemployed evil is in our midst, it is a cancer eating into our social system which will spread and contaminate every section of society. The question then is, what can be done? We are now paying for dairy produce close upon £25,000,000 a year, and for food stuffs £59,000,000 a year. Altogether I believe we are now paying to other nations for food supplies over £120,000,000, and I venture to assert 75 per cent. of this expenditure could be spent on food produced at home, to the spent on food produced at home, to the great advantage of all concerned. If I am asked as to the means to be employed in order to bring this desirable result about, my reply is: The same power by which between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 is spent in opening up Uganda. If we were to do as much for the people of England as has been done for the people of Uganda—
    And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
    Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.