Sitting of 4 August 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went;—and being returned;—Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. (See page 217.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North Eastern Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Acton Sewage Bill; Bolton Corporation Bill; Halifax Corporation Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill (by Order). Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Tuesday next (Evening Sitting).
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition of chairmen or members of various boards of guardians, county councils, municipal or sanitary authorities, and others, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1893 to 1902–3 (Thirty-first Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th June; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 276, of Session 1904) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 300.]
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Seventy-first Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, being for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Section I. of the Appendix to the Seventy-first Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th May; Mr. Sloan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 301.]
  NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (IRELAND) (SCHOOL COMMITTEES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th July; Mr. T. W Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRE- LAND) (ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Walter Long]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, COLERAINE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Coleraine, and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, closing shops on certain days within the Urban District of Coleraine [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Seventy -third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Statement relative to Stations and Units in which cases of
  246
  Epizootic Lymphangitis have occurred in the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3471 and 3472 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TEA AND COFFEE, 1903.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the consumption of Tea and Coffee in the principal countries of Europe, the United States, and certain British Colonies; together with information relating to the principal sources of supply in recent years, so far as the particulars can be stated (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 363, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]

  PRIVATE LEGISLATI0N PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return ordered, "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1905 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved."— (The Lord-Advocate.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Church Property Branch of the Irish Land Commission.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the total cost of the Church Property Branch of the Irish

  247
  Land Commission for the financial year 1899–1900; the estimate for the present year; the names, length of service, salaries, and allowances of all officers, distinguishing temporary and permanent, of that department for the year 1899–1900; the salaries and allowances of each of the aforesaid officers still in the service of the Land Commission, as estimated for the present year.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) At my hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. The total cost of the Church Property Department of the Irish Land Commission for the financial year 1899–1900 was £16,721. The total estimated cost for the financial year 1905–6 is £13,200. I am not aware that any useful public purpose would be served by the publication of the information desired in the second part of the Question, and cannot, therefore, agree to give it.

  Alleged Disturbances at Larne,
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 27th of June last, on the occasion of an excursion by the Catholic Temperance Society of Limavady to Larne, the Protestant band turned out in the evening and created a disturbance, and blocked the way of the excursionists to the railway station when returning, and will he explain why the police did not interfere: whether any prosecutions have followed; and, if so, the nature and result of such prosecutions.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I assume that this Question refers to the proceedings at Limavady. The Protestant band did not turn out at that place, nor was the way to the railway station blocked. About 150 persons assembled at the railway station, but these were mostly friends of the excursionists. No breach of the peace occurred, and no prosecution, therefore, was instituted. There was no disturbance at Larne.

  Foreign Seamen on British Ships.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the captain of the steamship "Elswick
  248
  Grange "discharged his crew at Hamburg on the 5th June, 1905, and refused to pay the cost of passage money to the United Kingdom for Lucaz Nerz, a seaman who engaged on the vessel at Barry Dock on the 12th February, 1905, on the ground that Nerz was a German subject; whether he is aware that His Majesty's Consul-General at Hamburg stated that he had instructions from the Board of Trade that German seamen discharged from British ships at Hamburg, although resident in the United Kingdom, are not entitled to have their passage defrayed to the port at which they originally shipped, and that a similar case was tried before Sheriff McKenzie at Glasgow on the 1st March, 1905, and that the sheriff held that Section 186 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applied to foreign seamen as well as to Britishers; and whether he will cause instructions to be issued to His Majesty's Consuls that all seamen serving on British ships are entitled to the protection provided for them by the section of the Act referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are not yet in possession of all the facts with regard to the case referred to in the Question, but inquiries are being made, and the hon. Member shall be communicated with later.

  Compensation for Accidents to Seamen on British Ships.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a seaman, named Burton, was killed on the steamship "Glendale" (Weardale Steamship Company, Limited) on the 18th February, 1905, having fallen down the hold of that vessel in consequence of the fore and afters of the hatch being defective, and that the owners of the "Glendale" have not paid any compensation to the widow; whether he can state if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill, this session, with a view to providing for the payment of compensation for sailors and firemen who meet with accidents on board British ships; and whether he can state if any inquiry was held into the cause of Burton's death, and when such inquiry, if any, was held.

  249
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade are aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. They have communicated with the owners of the "Glendale," but have not yet received a reply. Inquiries were made in February and March last by the Board's officers at Borrowstouness, with the result that, though, some of the hatches were stated to have been defective, it is not clear that the accident was due to their condition, but that it was rather the result of carelessness. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to propose any legislation on the subject of seamen's compensation this session.

  Administration of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that the local authorities in Scotland are interpreting Section 82 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, which makes provision for closing ice cream and aerated water shops at hours fixed by the town councils, as applicable to immigrants only, and not to natives; whether he is aware that they are compelling foreign shopkeepers in Partick and other towns in Scotland registered under that section to close at ten p.m., and are allowing Scotch traders to keep open and sell aerated waters till twelve o'clock; whether he is aware of a decision of Baillie London, in Wishaw Police Court on 24th July, giving effect to these views and finding a complaint against a Scotch trader who sold aerated waters after ten p.m. not proven because she was Scotch, and of a decision of Baillie Orr, in Airdrie Police Court on 25th July, in which he fined an Italian, who supplied a fizzing drink after ten p.m., £1 because he was an Italian; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this partial administration of the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the administration of the Act. I have inquired into the matter, and find that no discrimination whatever is made against foreigners or immigrants. The statute, so far as I can ascertain, is being administered with perfect impartiality,
  250
  and there is no ground for my interference.

  Workmen's Compensation Act—Persons Dependent on others than Legitimate Relations.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a compensation case in Hexham County Court, where a grandmother was non-suited because of the illegitimacy of her grandson; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to remove this barrier to proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The hon. Member has kindly furnished me with particulars of this case, to which my attention had not previously been drawn. Undoubtedly the case is a hard one, but I am not prepared to propose any amendment of the law which would extend the right to compensation in fatal cases to persons dependent on the deceased, but not standing towards him in any legitimate relationship. There are obvious objections to so serious a change in the law, and I may remind the hon. Member that when the Bill of 1897 was in Committee of this House similar proposals were discussed and rejected.

  Printing and Stationery for County Courts.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether directions have been given to the registrars of the local County Courts, directing that the printing and stationery in connection with the local County Courts, hitherto supplied by the local printers and stationers, shall be in the future supplied from London; whether he is aware that this change would take away from local printers and their employees a considerable amount of current work, and throw on their hands plant which would be practically useless to them for other work; and what are the reasons which induced the Treasury to issue these directions.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my Answer of yesterday† to the hon.
  † See page 63.

  251
  Member for the Mansfield Division upon this subject.

  Treatment of Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Clones Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a written statement from Mr. Wilson, Secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, Clones, dealing with the treatment accorded to him by his superior officials because of his connection with the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association; whether he is aware that, during the recent investigation, the charges were dealt with and reported upon to the Postmaster-General by the officials whose conduct was called in question; and whether, in view of the fact that, as a result of the Postmaster-General's decision, the members of the staff recognise that if they join an association they will be punished by the officials and be retarded in their official career, he will order an inquiry to

  Unfunded Debt outstanding

  On 4th August, 1905.

  On 4th August, 1904.

  £

  £

  War Stock and Bonds

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  30,000,000

  30,000,000

  Exchequer Bonds

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  ‡27,621,100

  20,500,000

  Treasury Bills for Supply

  -

  -

  -

  -

  19,933,000

  21,133,000

  Treasury Bills for Ways and Means (repayable within the financial year)

  -

  -

  -

  —

  8,000,000

  Temporary advances on the credit of Ways and Means

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  —

  2,550,000

  77,554,100

  82,183,000

  † See (4) Debates, cl., 1313.
  ‡This amount includes the outstanding Exchequer bonds (£11,121,100) issued under the Supplemental War Loan Acts of 1900, which fall due in December, 1905, as well as the Exchequer bonds for £10,000,000, which are being issued under The Finance Act, 1905, for the
  252
  be conducted by men in no way concerned in the case.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As I have informed the hon. Member in answer to his Question on this subject on the 2nd instant†, I have nothing to add to my letter of the 11th ult., in which I stated that I was satisfied, after full investigation, that the officer at Clones to whom he refers has no just ground of complaint.

The Unfunded Debt.
MR. BRIGHT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Unfunded Debt; of what issues does it consist; what were the issues of the Unfunded Debt at the same date last year; and whether he now proposes to fund any portion of the present Unfunded Debt.
(Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain ) The figures for which the hon. Member asks are as follows:—
purpose of paying off an equivalent amount of the former bonds on their maturity.
The Exchequer bonds for £6,000,000, issued in October, 1904, under the Capital Expenditure (Money) Act, 1904, for the purposes of the Naval and Military Works Acts are not included in this total.
The proposals which I thought necessary for dealing with the Unfunded Debt in the current year were explained in my Budget statement; they received the approval of Parliament, and are now in course of execution. Nearly £3,000,000 of the Exchequer bonds falling due in December next have already been redeemed. The balance of the £4,000,000, which I proposed to redeem this year, will be cancelled on or before the due date, and the remaining bonds issued under the War Loans Acts of 1900 will be replaced on that date by the Exchequer bonds, issued under the Finance Act of this year, which provides for their regular and early extinction. If His Majesty's Government think it desirable to undertake any further funding operations, their proposals will be laid before Parliament in the usual way and at the usual time, and I must decline to anticipate by any statement at this time the Budget proposals of next year. The hon. Member is mistaken if he supposes, as his Question appears to indicate, that I have power to fund floating debt without the authority of Parliament.

Printing and Stationery for County Courts.
SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the circular issued by the Treasury as to the supply in future of all printed forms and stationery for the County Courts from the Controller of the Stationery Office, instead of, as now, from local firms, and of the objection taken in provincial towns to this course on account of the withdrawal of work and employment, he will reconsider the order.
(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield yesterday.† In the light of the statement then given, I do not think that any reconsideration of the question is called for.

Promotion of Irish National School Teachers.
MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
† See page 63.
254
of Ireland if he can state when a national school teacher's promotion should date from whose annnal examinations were held in August, 1902, 1903, and 1904, and given on this service; and whether promotion dates from April 1st previous or succeeding the last annual examination of triennial period of satisfactory service.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners are unable to answer a hypothetical Question of this nature. If my hon. friend will furnish me with the particulars of the individual case to which he refers, I will communicate further with the Commissioners.

Irish Board of Works and the Burton- port Railway.
MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company have complained of the manner in which the Board of Works allowed the contractors to carry out the contract for the construction of the railway from Letterkenny to Burton-port, built by free grant under the provisions of the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896; whether, seeing that the Board of Works have refused to join in the arbitration applied for by the railway company under the clause in the agreement between the Board of Works and the railway company, and that the railway company have complained that the rolling stock provided by the Board of Works is inadequate, and that the Board of Works have refused to provide additional equipment, and in view of the loss to the public in the district served by the Burtonport Railway, and the increase of liability of the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area, he will take steps to prevent the interference of the Board of Works with the nomination by the Board of Trade of an arbitrator to deal with the matters in question.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This is a matter which comes within the cognisance of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, to whom I beg to refer the hon. Member.

Acquisition of the Tanjong Paga Dock Company.
MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the acquisition by the Government of the Straits Settlements of the undertaking known as the Tanjong Paga Dock Company is in consequence of directions given by the Colonial Secretary; and, if so, what is the object of such acquisition; and whether it is, or is not, intended to establish a naval station in Singapore.
Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The grounds of public policy on which this decision was based are fully explained in a despatch addressed by me to the Governor of the colony on the 4th November last, a copy of which I shall be happy to communicate to the hon. Member. I am not aware that the Admiralty contemplate any alteration in the existing naval arrangement with regard to Singapore.

Army Badges.
MR. MOON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give the reasons why, in the case of military badges made of other materials than metal, the War Office refuses to abandon conditions stipulating that a given article should be made by hand or by machine, or partly by one method and partly by the other, and declines to recognise conformity to the sealed pattern as the sole criterion.
(Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) The Question apparently refers to worsted embroidery. Experience has proved that machine-embroidered badges and badges made partly by machinery and finished by hand do not equal the standard pattern. Consequently the stipulation "hand embroidered" in the tender forms is adhered to.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'local body for,' and insert the words 'distress committee of the council of.'"
"In page 1, line 7, after the word 'consisting,' to insert the word 'partly.'"
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'and' to insert the word 'partly.'"
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'any,' and insert the words 'members of every.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he did not propose to trouble the Committee with many Amendments to this Bill, although he thought it was open to criticism in many particulars; but he certainly did desire to raise one particular point. He did not attach any significance to the words in the Bill because he did not know what they meant. The boundary of a union might be the same as the boundary of a borough, while, on the other hand, the boundary of a borough might be larger than the bonudary of a union. In the case of Wigan the union was larger than the borough; and any difficulties that might arise in the case of districts beyond London were sure to arise in the case of London. Therefore, as he could not regard the Bill as being satisfactory as it now stood, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'in,' and insert the words 'representing a union having the same boundaries as.' "—(Sir Francis Powell.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)suggested that the point should be raised on a later Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words 'and of persons of experience in the administration of charities.'" —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. KEIR HARDIEopposed on the ground that the Amendment set up invidious distinctions. Others than members of charitable organisation societies would claim, and he hoped claim successfully, a right to be co-opted, and among them would be I secretaries of trade unions, who might be refused by borough councils on the ground that they had had no experience in the administration of charity. It was not fair thus to limit the choice of borough councils, and he, therefore, would move to omit the words "in the administration of charity."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'in the administration of charities.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. GERALD BALFOURthought that if the Amendment were accepted it would leave the sentence too vague. They had a precedent for his Amendment in the Education Act of 1902, where it was provided that members "experienced in administration" should be co-opted.
MR. CREMER: Why not make it "experienced, in the administration of public funds"?
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "experienced in the administration of distress funds"? We want to leave out the idea of charity.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid "distress fund" would convey no distinct meaning.
SIR JOHN GORST: Why not say "experienced in the relief of the distress."
*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: preferred the suggestion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He thought the words would convey the meaning more adequately.
MR. BOUSFIELD: Why not say "or other suitable persons"?
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought it was desirable to have more distinct phraseology, and he was induced to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'and of persons experienced in the relief of distress.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLnext moved an Amendment to the Amendment enabling the borough councils to make nominations.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 2, after the word 'distress' to insert the words 'nominated by a borough council.'"—(Sir Francis Powell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that the proposed Amendment would not work effectively in its present form.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'consisting,' to insert the word 'partly.'"

259
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'with power in each case to co-opt any persons,' and insert the words 'and partly of persons co-opted.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
CAPTAIN JESSELmoved an Amendment to give power to the Local Government Board to make nominations to the central committee, and he pointed out that this would enable them to bring in well-known men such as Mr. Charles Booth, the Bishop of Stepney, and Mr. Steadman, who otherwise might not find a seat on this body.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'and partly, if the order so provides, of persons nominated by the Local Government Board.'"—(Captain Jessel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GEEALD BALFOURsaid he was prepared to leave this matter to the general sense of the House.
MR. WHITMOREhoped the Government would accept it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'and every such order shall provide that one member at least of the Committee or body established by the order shall be a woman.'" —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'local body,' and to insert the words 'distress committee.'"—[Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'when so required by the central body shall receive.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he thought this was a most dangerous proposal.
MR GERALD BALFOURsaid he held that the words were desirable, otherwise the works of the local committee might become permanent whether in a period of prosperity or depression. In his opinion these works should apply only to periods of exceptional distress.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITopposed the Amendment. He held that this was a purely local matter, and a local body rather than a central one should be left to take the initiative in a matter which, depended on purely local knowledge.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that a distress committee shall not entertain an application from any person unless they are satisfied that he has resided in London for such period, not being less than twelve months, immediately before the application as the central body fix as a residential qualification.'"
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'local body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words 'the local body," and insert the word 'themselves.'"
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'local body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'provide,' to insert the words 'or contribute towards the provision of.'"
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out the word 'bodies,' and insert the word 'committees.'"
"In page 2, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'and shall inquire into any cases referred to them by the local body.'"
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'the local body,' and insert the words 'a distress committee.'"
"In page 2, line 11, to leave out the first word 'his,' and insert the word 'the.'"
"In page 2, line 11, to leave out the second word 'his.'"
"In page 2, line 12, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'of that person and any of his dependents.'"
"In page 2, line 12, after the word 'by,' to insert the words 'providing or contributing towards.'"

261
"In page 2, line 12, to leave out the words 'or otherwise.'"
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word 'himself' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he noticed that in the reprinted Bill the portion of the clause which he desired to amend was entirely omitted.
The CHAIRMANsaid that that was so, it was deleted in Committee on the last occasion.
SIR CHARLES KENSHAWsaid in that case he would move the Amendment in the form of a new clanse. He begged to move.
New clause—
"That temporary work shall mean work for not more than five days a week for a period not exceeding twelve weeks in a year, and the weekly remuneration for temporary work shall be less than that which would, under ordinary circumstances and in the same locality, be earned by an unskilled labourer working for the same number of hours."—(Sir Charles Renshaw)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
MR. GERALD BALFOUR.said the Bill as originally introduced made certain recommendations which the hon. Member now desired to amend, but those recommendations had been since omitted. When the Bill provided for the payment for this employment out of the rates, it was desirable that the conditions under which such employment might be given should be clearly laid down in the Bill, but now that this was to be done out of voluntary contributions there was no necessity to proceed further in the matter, though no doubt in the last section of the Bill certain conditions would be laid down.
MR. H. LAWSONsaid he merely wished to say a word in proof of the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would be not only ineffective but mischievous. On a
262
farm colony a man at present earned 10s. 6d. a week, to which had to be added travelling expenses and a certain allowance which was made to his wife and children. That brought the sum up to an amount higher than that earned by unskilled labour in the same kind of employment. So that if the words of the right hon. Baronet were accepted they would interfere and put a stop to what was being done under existing conditions at the farm colonies.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 2, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (6)."
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'any,' and to insert the words 'such of the.'"
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words "distress committees."
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'if' and insert the words 'as are.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour).
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, lines 38 to 40, to leave out the words 'of providing temporary work under this section except at a farm colony,' and insert the words 'except (i) establishment charges of the central body and the distress committees, including the expenses incurred by them in respect of labour exchanges and employment registers and in the collection of information; and (ii) the expenses incurred by the central body in aiding the emigration or removal to another area of an unemployed person and any of his dependants; and (iii.) the expenses incurred by the central body in relation to the acquisition, with the consent of the Local Government Board, of land for the purposes of this Act.'' —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. BONDsaid he proposed to move as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out the second sub-section. In the Bill as originally introduced there was no power to apply the rates in payment of emigration expenses.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, yes, there was.
*MR. BONDsaid that might be so, but he had not seen it in the original Bill. He submitted that these words, at any rate, should be seriously considered before they were agreed to. He did not for a moment say that it might not be right to set up bureaux for the purpose of sending abroad persons who were well qualified to go abroad and who could not find work at home. What he desired to call attention to was that under the present Bill they would be setting up bureaux for the purposes of emigration, and that the expense would have to be defrayed out of the rates. At the present time there was some qualified power possessed by the boards of guardians to adopt a procedure of the kind. He thought they ought to have some discussion in order to see whether it was really desirable that ratepayers should be obliged to contribute to the expense of sending people out of the country. He would move his Amendmend in order to enable his right hon. friend to give them an explanation.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 6, to leave out Sub-section (ii.)."—(Mr. Bond.)
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the proposal they were now discussing was to leave out Sub-section 2 of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He wished to know whether they were in order in considering this question before they had agreed to leave out the words in the original Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: That Question has already been put.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We did not quite understand that you had put the Question leaving out the words relating to providing temporary employment or we should have taken a division upon that point.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if there has been any mistake, but I have certainly put the Question.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As you put the Question, the hon. Member opposite rose and we understood that he was speaking to that point or unquestionably we should have challenged a division.
*MR. BOND: I rose after the Question had been put.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it was perfectly well understood that this was the particular point on which the discussion was expected, and I think it is the most important point. The question is whether labour on farm colonies shall be supported out of the rates. On a point of order, I wish to ask, if we are by some accident past the point, is there any way in which this subject may be legitimately raised.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think the best plan would be for me to take the responsibility upon my shoulders, and, though I have made no mistake, act as if I had. As the whole debate has been conducted in a friendly spirit, I will with general consent withdraw that Question and put it again. The Question is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the words proposed to be left out formed the apex of the structure which the Bill proposed to create. It was a Bill to establish organisations with a view to the provision of employment or assistance to an unemployed workman in proper cases. If those words were taken out there was no power contained within the four corners of this Bill to provide work for unemployed workmen, and therefore the title would become misleading, if not out of order. He knew it might be said that work might be provided if the money was found from charitable sources or through voluntary agencies. In his opinion this left too much to chance. In the Bill as originally drafted it was only proposed that the cost of the work should be found out of the rates when done at a

265
farm colony, and the power was restricted to work provided upon a farm colony. It was now proposed to take those words out. How would this empower one of the central bodies to acquire land? The central body would apply for a lease of land, and it would then have no power to spend a single penny in developing it or employing labour upon it unless the money came to them voluntarily. That was a most illogical and ridiculous position in which to place a public body. Was there any precedent for creating a public authority and then leaving it dependent upon the charity of the well-to-do? On the face of it the thing was absurd and ridiculous, and if these words were taken out the whole thing was reduced to an absurdity.
It had been said that the genuine unemployed were deserving of being treated in a different category from that of the much quoted loafer, who was in a position of destitution through some fault of his own. This Bill was intended to deal with the better class of the unemployed. He would remind the Committee that these were men and women who valued self-respect. Those who were acquainted with the facts could quote case after case in which, rather than go upon the Poor Law or apply to charitable organisations, they would suffer all manner of privations and hardships, and therefore he put it to hon. Members opposite whether it was not desirable to encourage that spirit of self-respect and independence to which he had referred. What did they say to these men? They said "You may be out of work through no fault of your own; you may want to work for your livelihood; but we shall not allow a single penny of public money to be spent in providing that work for you; and if work is to be found for you at all it must be through the charity of the rich." If hon. Members opposite understood how the word "charity" stank in the nostrils of the working classes, then they would not agree to these words being left out. It was not charity that was wanted, but an honest man's opportunity to work for his bread.
What power was there to spend money under the Bill? They had had all sorts of lurid pictures drawn of what
266
would happen if the new authorities were empowered to spend public money in finding work. He would remind the Committee that the Local Government Board would have power to lay down regulations under which the work was to be provided, and that fact ought to be kept in mind. The Local Government Board could decide the terms and conditions upon which employment was to be found, and therefore the danger complained of was safeguarded by that power being vested in a Department under the control of the House. Then, again, the expenditure was limited to a rate of ½d. in the £, and without the consent of the Local Government Board it could not be raised even to 1d. in the £. All they were now asking for was that a rate up to 1d. in the £ should be available to enable the new authorities to deal with this difficulty which they were being created to deal with. None of them contemplated that a rate would be required to pay men for doing useless work. Their experience of farm colonies in England went to show that once they were fairly started they stood a very good prospect of becoming not only self-supporting but even paying concerns. The men were not employed picking oakum or digging holes in order to fill them up again, but they were employed under properly-trained and skilled supervision upon farm work in all its varying phases, such as breeding stock, rearing poultry, and growing vegetables and fruit, and there was every prospect that these colonies would be self-supporting except during periods of exceptional distress.
They were asking that when the new authorities had acquired land they should also have power out of the rates to provide the necessary capital for the development of these farm colonies. He submitted that that was quite a logical position to take up. He confessed that he was afraid of leaving this matter to the tender mercies of the rich. There was, after all, a limit to the amount of money that could be obtained annually from charity, and the demands upon the purse of the well-to-do were increasing year by year. They had to subscribe to the hospitals,

267
infirmaries, children's homes, holiday funds, and various other organisations which for the moment were fit and proper subjects for charity. But even now the great hospitals found the greatest difficulties in obtaining the necessary funds to keep those institutions going. If in addition to these institutions they imposed upon charity the task of providing money for distress during unemployment, if the money was forthcoming for the unemployed it was certain that the hospitals and other charitable institutions would suffer accordingly.
An examination of this question disclosed the fact that £50,000 was raised in London for the unemployed under the Central Committee instituted by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he noticed that most of the big donors to that fund were not even natives of this country. In Birmingham a 1d. rate would yield £11,622; in the London County Council area the same rate would produce £171,000 a year. If the Bill was applied to the London police area then a 1d. rate would yield £202,000, in Manchester £15,000, Sheffield £6,000, and so on. The point he wished to make was that last year, despite the big subscriptions and the prestige the committee had through having been established by the then President of the Local Government Board, and despite all the personal efforts made to obtain money for this committee, the total sum raised was only £50,000, which was totally inadequate for the purpose. In a time of distress when money was wanted, if, instead of sending the hat round, not only in this country, but also in the Colonies, begging our cousins across the seas to remember their poor brethren at home—if, instead of being reduced to that indignity, the new authorities had power to raise money from the rates for this purpose to the extent of a 1d. rate, then the difficulty would be overcome, and they would be able to provide themselves with the money necessary for carrying out the work which had been entrusted to them. Therefore, he disagreed with the Amendment which had been moved by the President of the Local Government Board, and even at that late hour he would appeal to him and to hon. Mem-
268
bers sitting behind him to say whether it was a wise policy, when creating these new authorities, to deny them the small help they could obtain from the rates. They had heard of British workmen scamping their work, but a piece of workmanship more discouraging than this Bill, when these words were left out, it would be almost impossible to conceive. He trusted the House would not say that the only help these new authorities were to get was to be from the charity of the rich, and he hoped it would not declare that unemployed workers were to have no claim whatever on public funds in order to tide them over a period of distress for which they were not responsible.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that no one admired more than he did the earnestness with which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had treated this question, and it was impossible not to feel that to declare that these measures of relief from the rates recommended in the terms in which the hon. Member recommended them, were improper and ought to be withheld was to expose one to the imputation of being wanting in proper consideration for those who were badly off, and to an imputation of selfishness and hardness which no Member of the House liked to incur. But he would venture to assure the hon. Member that those Members who were opposed to him in opinion on the subject were opposed entirely on principle and not because they did not feel from the bottom of their hearts the sorrows of those of whom he was the champion.
The hon. Member maintained that charity was not wanted, that it stank in the nostrils of the working classes, and. he looked, therefore, to some payment of wages on the part of the community as being, not charity, but fulfilment of a debt. Payment under the Bill as it was originally framed, however, would have been charity, and not payment of a debt. It would have masqueraded as payment of a debt, and it would have been demoralising in a manner which it was very easy to show. He did not know that a charitable payment was in itself degrading. It was not in the least degrading. Any feeling of self-respect which felt degraded by receiving charitable relief when such relief was really

269
needed was a morbid feeling of self-respect and not a wholesome one. But the wound to a healthy self-respect ought to be much greater when there was a pretence about the matter, when the gift was not frankly made as a gift, but appeared in the light of wages, though it was, in fact, no such thing. The hon. Member was, he thought, himself deceived by this pretence. The payment out of the rates for these farm colonies would not be wages; it would not be payment made because work was wanted to be done in that particular place and on that particular occasion; it would be payment made because the House and the country generally felt compassion for the sorrows and hardships of the people employed. They would, in fact, be charitable payments.
He did not think it possible to exaggerate the dangers of such a system as that to the character of the first recipients and to the character of that large class of persons who might conceivably become recipients afterwards. Why was there this widespread impression that charitable payments did, as a matter of fact, demoralise the people who received them? It was that such people came to expect charity, and that begging came to be a profession. Everyone knew that the begging-letter writer was a demoralised person. He became demoralised because begging had become his avocation. Instead of earning his own living he begged for it. He was a professional beggar because he had come to think that he had a right to receive the charity of other persons. What would this Bill have done but create a class of unemployed quite as demoralised as the class of professional begging-letter writers, people whose profession and way of life, in the winter months at least, would have come to be the receiving of public charity, and who would have come to look upon it not as charity, but as a right? Their vocation would have been to be unemployed. Unemployment would have been a profession like any other profession; and the public, under the guise of giving these people help, would have done more to sink them permanently in the social scale than if they left them to all the hardships they felt before. If the Poor Law was too hard, and if it could be shown to
270
require modification, by all means let it be modified. Let the assistance they gave be relief, frankly given as such, but let them not pretend that it was wages paid. Let them not delude people whom they were helping into the false and demoralising balief that they were earning their own living, when as a matter of fact they were doing nothing of the kind. They should not let them feel that work on a farm colony, and receiving money from the rates, was not at all a less honourable or a less independent way of life than if they were earning their living by any other form of labour. If they did not keep to that distinction between relief and wages they would do much more harm than good.
He had approached the subject from the moral point of view—the influence on character; but the evils could be shown, as was more commonly done, just as easily in approaching it from the economic point of view. It was suggested that the State should create an artificial demand for labour. Observe the inconsistency. Anybody who was, or believed himself, unable to get work elsewhere was to have this resource open to him; it would be something he could fall back upon, so that he could bargain in the labour market with a greater advantage. Therefore they would be interfering with the labour market at one end. Imagine the indignation of hon. Members opposite if it were proposed that paupers in workhouses should make things for sale, and so relieve the rates. Who would be so indignant as hon. Members opposite at such competition with free labour? How inconsistent, then, were they to object to the State using this machinery for the produce of cheap goods in workhouses for the benefit of the community, but not to object in the least to interference with the labour market which would make labour dearer or prevent it becoming cheaper. Was not this the very path which the Australian Colonies had trod with such disastrous results?
He was very glad the Government were undertaking to inquire into the whole matter; such action could not but be of great value. He greatly regretted that they did not have the inquiry before they brought in this Bill. The bringing in of the Bill had placed the House and

271
those who were opposed to the principles of the Bill in a very difficult position. If this provision was altogether struck out of the Bill the result undoubtedly would be that it would appear to a very large number of people in this country that this House was hard and indifferent and cared more for its holidays than for the distresses of the poor, and ultimately a class prejudice would be created which would be very mischievous. He did not want, and he was sure no Member of the House wanted, to create the feeling that those who were better off were indifferent to the sorrows of the poor. He wished to avoid any element of division, and, in deference to that consideration, he was quite prepared to assent to the passage of the Bill in its amended form. But he was sorry that the inquiry had not been held and the matter approached with more caution; the House was placed in the dilemma of choosing between two alternatives, both of which appeared to him to be bad ones. The best thing they could do now was to carry the Government Amendment and so save the Bill from being the harbinger of a most dangerous and disastrous course of legislation.
*MR. CROOKSsaid the whole argument of the noble Lord had reference to the question whether relief should be given in cases of distress by means of public or private charity. The ambition of those who were in favour of the farm colonies was that the men employed on them should give value for the money they received. It was not strange that men who had only an academic knowledge of things and who did not come in contact with those men should say that this was charity. What was proposed here was to help these men to say that they were giving value for the money they received. The class of people proposed to be assisted would not be created by the Bill; they already existed. Reference had been made to the class of professional beggars. There were, no doubt, people who were not subject to any moral discipline who would take advantage of others who were charitable. But what he and his friends were pleading for was the provision of means to make them better men by
272
insisting on their doing a day's work for the money paid to them. It was said by the opponents of this measure that this would create a fictitious demand for labour. It would do nothing of the kind. If men who were willing to work could not find employment it was surely better that they should be provided with useful work in the way proposed than that they should remain idle and depend for support on public or private charity. If it was degrading to receive the aid of charity, it was certainly less degrading to earn a living by giving labour for the money received.
The plea of those who supported the proposal for farm colonies was that workers would be saved if they were given something useful to do. He believed the whole thing would be self-supporting. When a proposal of this kind was made the economics of the question always came up, and it was said that they were interfering with persons getting cheap labour. There was some labour which would be dear at any price. What was wanted was that men who at present preyed on the public, and were a nuisance on account of the lives they lived, should be made a valuable asset of the State, capable of doing a day's work. They were told that a surplus number of men would always be wanted in the labour market. No doubt if a master wanted twenty men he would prefer on going to the gate to find 100 from whom he could pick out those who best suited him. Surely that was not good for the welfare of a nation. Did they think that a man was likely to turn to farm work if he could get employment at his own work? The man who had eyes like those of a dead fish and who did not care for anything or anybody would, if put to work on the land for a time, become a useful citizen, but no attempt to deal with that man was made at present. They left him alone. The nation got no benefit from that policy. Instead of getting manly men they were getting degenerates who depended on the charity of others. They wished to get rid of that class, and to get men who would do a useful day's work.
The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich knew perfectly well from the statistics which were issued year

273
by year that an enormous amount of produce came to this country which could fee produced here if the unemployed in the large towns could be put on the land. They only wanted the capital outlay to begin with. It would be many years before they could persuade the House of Commons that a workman was a human being. [Cries of "No."] He was very glad to have the disclaimer; but did hon. Members opposite talk of these men, and treat them as human beings? Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked him if he was very serious about this matter. He would ask the noble Lord opposite what he would think if he saw three able-bodied men on their knees—that happened to him that morning—with a loaf of bread which they put into a dirty handkerchief, which probably they had received from the board of guardians, in order to take that loaf of bread home. Could hon. Members imagine themselves being in such a condition? If hon. Gentlemen could see this matter from the standpoint he had presented he did not believe that there would be so much said about the economic argument. Those men had to live; how were they living? They were living under conditions which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not allow their dogs to live under! He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were sympathetic; but they pointed out that if these men were given employment in this fashion—employment being limited —the supply of labour would be decreased. What he, and those who agreed with him, thought was that they should increase the production of labour.
No one believed that an ordinary working man out of employment would turn with a light heart to a farm colony. It was the last thing that he would think of doing. What they wanted was to keep the manhood of the nation up to a proper standard and not to degrade it. What they wanted was to have the necessary capital to start with for the payment of fair wages; and in a very short time these farm colonies would be self-supporting. In big towns many men were hanging around, useless creatures. What he said was, "Take these men away into the country and make them useful." They might know nothing of agriculture; but under a proper system of discipline they would become better men than they ever were
274
before. What was wanted was to get hold of this flotsam and jetsam of the towns and turn them into useful citizens. Not to do so was a positive loss to the nation. Why should there be men and women going about our streets without the necessities of life? In these farm colonies there was an opportunity for men and women who had broken down owing to the introduction of new machinery, and fluctuations of trade, to turn their mind into some useful occupation.
He rather agreed that this Bill would not be so good in its result as the economic Gentlemen opposite said it would be without this clause. But he only wished that hon. Gentlemen opposite had had some of his experience. He did not believe that there was a hard-hearted man in that House; they only erred in this regard because they were ignorant of the facts of the case. When a banker pleaded some financial question, hon. Members said that he spoke on a subject of which he knew something, and, therefore, they trusted him, and voted accordingly. What he wanted was that the Labour Members should be treated in the same fashion. What he and his Labour friends were pleading for was that they ought to have their wishes — founded on experience—considered in regard to this matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not wish to keep the House from the division or to emphasise the extremely keen feeling with which this Amendment was regarded. He did not find himself entirely in agreement with either the views of his noble friend the Member for Greenwich or the two Labour representatives who had spoken on the other side of the House. He did not think that the original Bill, which the House was now engaged in amending, was open to the charges which had been levelled against it by his noble friend; but he agreed with his noble friend that bearing in mind the whole history of the steps by which they had arrived at their present position with regard to the measure, it would be most unwise for the House to attempt to retrace its steps and endeavour to preserve the original measure, which he did not deny was a more far-reaching measure than this one.

275
There seemed to be absolutely no difference of opinion, so far as he could discover, as to what it was the House desired. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, and he believed that everyone was agreed that the object to be aimed at in any new development of the law for the relief of distress in this country was to help the industrious and energetic worker who through no fault of his own fell out of employment and sank into one difficulty after another until he reached the final stage when his family must be broken up and seek the refuge of the workhouse. They all wanted to find a solution to that difficulty. They all desired to see some machinery of relief contrived by which such a man would be enabled to tide over what was but a temporary difficulty, the want of employment, and keep himself among the efficient working classes of the country, instead of being reduced to the unfortunate level of the pauper, who became not merely a charge on the rates, but, by the very fact of being a pauper, too often lost that fundamental self-respect which was the bas s of all progress in every class of the community. On the other hand, none of them desired to see public funds diverted in order to keep in undeserved well-being those who did not desire to do a good day's work and earn a good day's wages, those waste products of every great society, which no improvement could altogether eliminate from our social system, and which everyone agreed did not deserve exceptional or favourable treatment at the hands of the community.
If, then, they were all agreed as to the result they desired to attain, where was it and why was it that they differed? He thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had done less than justice to his noble friend. The danger was that they might create a class whom they did not put under the disabilities of the ordinary Poor Law, but who oscillated between constant employment in the summer and relief from the rates in the winter, a class who, perhaps, never sank to the level of the beggar or the professional pauper, but who never rose, and never had any ambition to rise, to the high level of the steady working classes of the
276
country. Now, no one would deny that it would be a great calamity to create this kind of middle class, this kind of superior pauper; and no one would deny either that there would be that danger if they were to tamper with the subject in a reckless spirit. He thought that the hon. Gentleman and his friends would admit that this question ought to be approached with caution. His noble friend, in criticising the original Bill, appeared to have forgotten the clause which made it impossible for a man to remain in this middle stage between the pauper and the worker, the clause to which he attached the utmost importance, which provided that no man should receive any benefit from the measure for more than two years. Now that there was a Royal Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Poor Law they might hope to be in a better state of mind to deal with the problem after that Commission had reported.
He had said what he had said by way of illustration of the Government's original policy. In the circumstances he appealed to both sides to accept the modified policy which the Government presented in the Amendments to the original Bill. He was not going to admit that the original Bill was not carefully thought out by the Government, or that it was likely to lead to the dangers which some persons apprehended. But he was ready to admit the subject was so difficult and important that caution might very well commend itself to those most anxious to see some modifications introduced into the law of relief by which the case of the genuinely unemployed workmen might be adequately dealt with. He thought they might all accept this modified measure as a fair compromise. He had told the House that if the Government insisted in carrying the Bill in its original shape it would raise considerable controversy. He did not make that statement without knowledge. Any attempt at this stage of the session to carry the original Bill could only end in getting no Bill at all. If it were true, as he thought it was true, that the modified Bill now before the House was a step in the right direction; if they were convinced, as he undoubtedly was,

277
convinced, that the proposed Royal Commission would be fruitful in good results, he begged of those who wanted to go a step further not to lose the fruits that were within their grasp by an attempt to seize things which the present state of the Parliamentary situation placed outside their reach, but to accept a Bill — which he thought they might do without any sacrifice of principle or expediency, and which would enable this House to pass with something like unanimity a measure which he was sure would do great good, and which would be capable of amendment or extension in any direction which in the light of future information they might think advisable. Therefore, without arguing for or against the actual Amendment, and contenting himself with the explanation he had given of the policy of the Government in refusing the original Bill, might he make an appeal to the House to accept the new policy,
which circumstances made so desirable from every point of view? And might he direct that appeal not merely to those who perhaps looked with some distrust on the Bill even as amended, but to those amongst his own friends who would like to see it go further, and even to those Gentlemen opposite who, however inadequate they might think the proposed measure might be, still shared the opinion of the Government that it was undoubtedly an improvement, even from their point of view, upon the state of things in which they would be placed if, through an attempt to make this Bill do more than it could be made to do, they lost the whole measure? He made that appeal in the interests of both sides.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 108; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 339).

AYES.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Baker, Joseph Allen

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Helme, Norval Watson

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Rea, Russell

Bell, Richard

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Black, Alexander William

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bright, Allan Heywood

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Burke, E. Haviland

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Rose, Charles Day

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Buxton, NE(York, NR, Whitby

Jordan, Jeremiah

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Shackleton, David James

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cawley, Frederick

Lamont, Norman

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clancy, John Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Spencer, Rt Hn C.R.(Northants

Crean, Eugene

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crooks, William

Lundon, W.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Cullinan, J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n,N

Dobbie, Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. C.

M'Fadden, Edward

Ure, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

M'Kean, John

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE

Moulton, John Fletcher

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murnaghan, George

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Young, Samuel

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tellers for the Ayes—

Harcourt, Lewis

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.

Harrington, Timothy

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

Arthur Henderson.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Partington, Oswald

Hayden, John Patrick

Paulton, James Mellor

NOES

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Garfit, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Arrol, Sir William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T rH'ml'ts

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Grenfell, William Henry

Percy, Earl

Baird, John George Alexander

Gretton, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

Hamilton, Marq.of(L'ndnderry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hardy, Laurence(KentAshford

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Kenneth, R (Christch.

Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Heaton, John Henniker

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Helder, Sir Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pym, C. Guy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hill, Henry Staveley

Rankin, Sir James

Bingham, Lord

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Bond, Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bousfield, William Robert

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Hunt, Rowland

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brymer, William Ernest

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bull, William James

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Kerr, John

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)

Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Wore.

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chapman, Edward

Liddell, Henry

Stroyan, John

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, P. L. (Down, North)

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tuff, Charles

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Davenport, William Bromley

Macdona, John Cumming

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dickson, Charles Scott

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maconochie, A. W.

Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyne)

Doughty, Sir George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, Harry Hananel

Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

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

Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Mane'r

Milvain, Thomas

Wylie, Alexander

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R B.(Inv'rn'ss

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

Fisher, William Hayes

Morpeth, Viscount

Tellers FOR THE NOES—

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Morrell, George Herbert

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Flower, Sir Ernest

Morrison, James Archibald

and Viscount Valentia.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he desired to move to omit Sub-section 2 of the Amendment just
280
agreed to. He had a strong dislike to anything which increased the burden of local taxation. It was already enormously heavy on the industries of this country, and it ought not, therefore, to be added to. Only

281
on the preceding day he had occasion to look into the question of the rating of our railways, and he found that in the case of one company alone no less a sum than £307,000 was charged in respect of rates and taxes. And that was merely a sample of what was going on in connection with all our great undertakings.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Committee had already decided that rates might be raised for the purposes of the Act, and the hon. Member was therefore simply arguing against a decision already arrived at.
Mr. DAVID MACIVERsaid that, inasmuch as he was precluded from moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, he would not press his opposition.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 5, at end, to insert the words '(9) The Local Government Board may, upon the application of the council of any borough or district adjoining or near to London, by order extend the provisions of this section to that borough or district as if the borough or district were a metropolitan borough, and were within the administrative county of London, and with such other modifications and adaptations as to the Board may appear necessary.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. KEIR HARDIEmoved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to provide that the Local Government Board might, if they thought it expedient, extend the provisions of the section to any borough or district adjoining or near to London without any such application. He pointed out that the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board might lead to unfair results, inasmuch as a poor outside district like West Ham might apply to be brought in, and thus help to swell the burden of the rates upon the London ratepayer, while the richer residential districts would remain out, and provide no compensation. After all, for all practical purposes places like West Ham were inside the London area and should participate in the benefits of the fund. In his opinion, there should be power to compel the residential districts to come in and pay their fair share
282
of the rates. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 2, after the word 'London,' to insert the words 'or, if they think it expedient, without any such application.' "—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped that the President of the Local Government Board would give this Amendment favourable consideration. As the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment stood it would not work quite fairly, as many of the poorer districts outside London would not be able to work the Act except in co-operation with other districts. This proposal simply gave option to the Local Government Board to bring in other parts, and although he would have preferred to have seen the whole police area of London brought within the scope of the Bill, he thought the proposal of the Member for Merthyr Tydvil should be accepted.
*MR. H. LAWSONalso felt strongly that the rule should be "all or none." The halfpenny rate had been agreed to, and would be levied and expended for the purposes already sanctioned by the House. It was therefore no use labouring under any delusion. The poor ratepayer would feel the burden to a much greater extent than anybody else, and under the original Amendment he might be saddled with the upkeep of many poor districts and gain nothing in return. He did not think that would be equitable.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITalso approved the Amendment, as it proceeded on the lines of the Equalisation of Rates Act which he had actively supported and which had operated most beneficially for the poorer boroughs of the Metropolis.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaw many objections to the proposal. It was frankly confessed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that it was intended

283
that the Amendment should have the effect of drawing in the richer districts for the benefit of the poorer ones outside the Metropolis, and he thought it would be rather a strong order to put a power in the hands of the Local Government Board to be exercised against the will of the localities concerned. The effect would simply be to milk them for the benefit of others.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the residential suburbs of London were occupied by people who there spent the money earned for them by the workpeople in the East End of London and in poorer districts generally. It was not fair that they should be able to make money in one part of London and then clear out and spend it in another part, thus escaping scot free from obligations which should properly be borne by them.
MR. BOUSFIELDsuggested the Government should reconsider their decision. Might they not consider whether they could not include a sufficient proportion of the outlying counties round London, and put the county councils of those counties under the necessity of making a rate. A little consideration would enable them to mark out a suitable boundary. Surely between now and the Report stage it might be possible to devise some practical machinery which would meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas inclined to think that both sides of the House would welcome a proposal to bring the larger areas outside London into coordination and co-operation with the smaller circle of the Metropolis itself. It would be grossly unfair to the Metropolis to have a district like West Ham brought in and for wealthier districts to be permitted to stand out. His suggestion was that the Local Government board should be enabled to draw up a scheme which would cover the various areas outside London. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it would not be fair to the richer districts to compel them to come in, but surely it would not be fair that London as a whole should be mulcted for the benefit of the poorer districts without getting the
284
relief to which they were entitled from other districts better off.
MR KEIR HARDIE: Can the President of the Local Government Board hold out any hope that this matter will be reconsidered? If so, I will not pre s my Amendment.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would try and collect the opinion on the subject before the Report stage, and consider the matter; but he must not be taken as giving any pledge. The House was a comparatively small one, and he was not prepared to accept without inquiry the statements which had been made.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. BONDwas understood to express a doubt as to the desirability of the unemployed committees being empowered to spend public funds for purposes of migration, and to say that the House ought also to have an opportunity of considering more carefully whether these committees should have power to emigrate people.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member was mistaken if he supposed that the original Bill did not give power to emigrate or migrate persons. He did not think any danger whatever was involved in the proposal. Both boards of guardians and county councils already possessed power to emigrate people, but he admitted that the power to migrate was new. He did not think, however, that any serious danger was likely to arise. If the central body in London were simply to pay the travelling expenses of a large number of unemployed and dump them down in some other area, that certainly would be a most undesirable proceeding, but it was impossible to suppose that such would be the result of this proposal.
MR. J. F. HOPEwished to protest against the idea that certain provisions in this Bill were bound up with an extreme form of Socialism. He did not wish to be considered a better Tory than Mr. Pitt, and hon. Members should remember that in 1796 Mr. Pitt introduced a Bill dealing with the subject under discussion, which passed through Committee, but was eventually lost largely through the Radical philosopher Benham. Clause 2 of that Bill embodied the principle of the living wage, providing that if a man was working for a wage insufficient to keep his family respectably it might be supplemented from the rates. Clause 3 provided that agricultural labourers might be provided with cows and other animals out of the rates Clause 5 provided that the possession of visible property not exceeding £30 in value should not disqualify for poor relief. Among other provisions, there wag one bearing on the farm colony question, under which managers of the poor were empowered to enclose commons. These provisions, whether they were good or bad, showed that Conservative tradition was not identified with an extreme form of individualism. He regretted that the Bill was not kept in its original form; he had voted for the omission of crucial words only because he was afraid the Bill would otherwise be lost. He hoped the Bill would be given a fair chance, and, if necessary, wider experiments made, but they should be judged by their actual fruits and not merely upon theories.
Clause 2:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'county borough a body,' and insert the words 'municipal borough and urban district with a population, according to the last census for the time being, of not less than fifty thousand, and not being a borough or district to which the provisions of Section 1 of this Act have been intended, a distress committee of the council.'"
"In page 3, line 18, to leave out the words 'local body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
286
"In page 3, line 19, to leave out the word 'body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
"In page 3, line 19, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words 'or district.'"
"In page 3, line 21, to leave out the words 'local bodies, and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 3, line 21, to leave out from the word 'London' to the end of line 26, and insert the words 'This provision shall extend to any municipal borough or urban district with a population, according to the last census for the time being, of less than fifty thousand but not less than twenty thousand, if the council of the borough or district make an application for the purpose to the Local Government Board, and the Board consent,'"
"In page 3, line 27, at the beginning to insert the words "Subject as aforesaid.'"
"In page 3, line 28, after the word 'county,' to insert the words 'or borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 28, after the word 'guardians,' to insert the words 'or if they think it expedient without any such application.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWasked why it was proposed that this compulsion should be applied to county local authorities. The provision might have a most serious effect in compelling a county to go in for the proposed system whether they wished to or not. The local authorities were perfectly competent to consider this question, and knew the needs of the district infinitely better than the President or any official of the Local Government Board could do. It was extremely undesirable that this power of compulsion should be placed in the hands of the Department, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would Withdraw the Amendment.
MR. PEELthought it would be unadvisable to set up an organisation of this kind against the wish of the local authority. The Bill depended largely on local effort and voluntary subscriptions, and large subscriptions were not likely to be forthcoming for the establishment of farm colonies if the local authorities were so

287
much against the setting up of the machinery that they had not made an application, or if the machinery was set up against the will of the local authority. The provision would probably defeat its own end.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Amendment, the scope of which, he thought, had been misapprehended by hon. Members opposite. The Local Government Board were not likely to use the power unfairly or unreasonably. In a county there might be several considerable industrial centres which would have their own central bodies under this Bill, but there might be a considerable margin of unemployed in the districts outside those areas for whom the county council would be able practically to wash its hands of all responsibility, and who would naturally drift into the towns where central bodies had been created. He imagined that the object of the Amendment was to enable the Local Government Board in such cases to extend the operation of the Act to practically the whole county.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for Poplar had correctly explained the motive with which the Amendment had been put on the Paper. It had been represented to him that the unemployed in the county districts where the organisation was not in operation might flock into the industrial districts where it was in operation. He did not think it was a very serious risk, but he was sure the Local Government Board would not use this power unless there were very real reasons for so doing. It would be very difficult for the Board to force local authorities in opposition to their views.
MR. GARDNERhoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way in this matter. The county councils and district councils were strongly opposed to being over-ridden by the Local Government Board. They knew their own business and the conditions of their areas perfectly well, and there would be ample force behind them to compel them to put the Act into operation if it were necessary or desirable.
288
He could see no reason whatever for the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELdid not think the Amendment was intended to apply to purely rural counties. The case suggested was that of a county in which there were small industrial towns, such as Leicestershire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the danger foreseen was that in a time of depression, if there was unemployment in many of the small industrial towns, the unemployed would be thrown as a burden upon the central county boroughs or other large towns which had established machinery for the relief of the unemployed. In the Second Reading debate, no proposal was more criticised than that this machinery should be put into operation in London while in the provinces the question was left open, the fear being that the unemployed would be attracted to London. That point had been met, but precisely the same argument applied to the county towns in an industrial county as to London in regard to the country as a whole. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Amendment.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that from the first he had felt there was a serious danger that this Bill might lead to a considerable exodus of rural populations from the country districts into the towns. In many places there was an entirely false notion as to the wealth that could be obtained in the towns, and it would be a very great evil if that delusion were in any way strengthened. He regretted the Bill because of the effect it might have in that direction. He wished not only the return of the people to the land, but also the continuance of the rural population already there, and he deprecated anything that might operate in a different direction. For this reason he entirely concurred in the criticisms which had been made of this proposal.
MR. LEVYpointed out that many villages had industrial populations not working on the land, who felt the lack of employment as acutely as the workpeople in the boroughs, and unless there

289
was some means by which the inhabitants of these villages could participate in the benefits of this Bill, they would naturally migrate by degrees to the boroughs. Thus the village populations would be diminished, the town populations increased, and the burden on the boroughs intensified. The Amendment was absolutely necessary. A large number of boroughs, but hardly any county councils, had petitioned the Government to go on with this Bill, the reason being that the county councils did not come into such close touch as the boroughs with the working people and therefore did not fully realise the importance and necessity of the Bill.
*MR. H. LAWSONsaid he did not claim to speak for any other county than London, but London would be the chief victim or beneficiary under this Bill, whichever way it was regarded. The hon. Member for Wigan had admitted that the people drifted from the country districts into the large towns, and London had either to maintain these people in the poorhouses or provide the machinery proposed in this Bill. That was what London had to suffer now, and he strongly hoped the districts in the neighbourhood of London would not be allowed to escape by refusing to act fairly in this matter. The Local Government Board would not arbitrarily, and without necessity or just cause, impose this machinery on a district; it would speedily be brought to account ii any such attempt were made. He strongly protested against London, which was to be made the subject of a great experiment, being put at a disadvantage by the extension of undue favour to certain districts.
MR. MOUNTpointed out that to benefit under the Bill it was necessary that a person should have resided in the district for a period of not less that twelve months immediately before the application. He could not think that anybody would go from the country and live in a town for twelve months simply to get the possible advantage of the Bill. If the measure
was to be useful in the country districts it was essential that it should be applied with the approval of the local authorities; but for it to be imposed against the will of the locality would go a long way towards making it inoperative.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONwas surprised that so many representatives of county divisions should urge the withdrawal of this Amendment. In such districts they were at times faced with the problem of unemployment. Sometimes through the closing of a colliery 200 or 300 men were temporarily thrown out of work. It was not desired that those men should be attracted into the big boroughs near by; they wanted to prevent the depopulation of the villages, which had been going on, because when these periods of unemployment arrived there was no provision for giving temporary relief. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the appeals from the other side of the House.
MR. BUTCHERsaid it was important to understand the meaning of the clause. Was it possible for the Local Government Board, under the clause as it stood, upon the application of, say, one district council or one board of guardians to establish a central body for the entire county? As the clause stood he thought they could, and, if so, this Amendment was a comparatively small extension. That being so, if his interpretation was correct, he should support the Amendment.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his hon. friend was quite correct as to the meaning of the clause. In view of the great variety of opinion which had been expressed he thought the Government ought not to press the Amendment officially. He would suggest, therefore, that hon. Members should vote according to their convictions. Personally, he should vote for the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes 97. (Division List No. 340.)

AYES.

Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

Arrol, Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Atherley-Jones, L.

Baker, Joseph Allen

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

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Grant, Corrie

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Grenfell, William Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Bell, Richard

Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

Randles, John S.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hammond, John

Rea, Russell

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Harcourt, Lewis

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Bill, Charles

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Richards, Thomas

Bingham, Lord

Harrington, Timothy

Rickett, J. Compton

Black, Alexander William

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bright, Allan Heywood

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bull, William James

Hayden, John Patrick

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rose, Charles Day

Burt, Thomas

Healy, Timothy Michael

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Heaton, John Henniker

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Buxton, N E(York, N R, Whitby

Helder, Sir Augustus

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

Helme, Norval Watson

Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)

Caldwell, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Shackleton, David James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Higham, John Sharp

Sharpe, William Edward T

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Houston, Robert Paterson

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cawley, Frederick

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Slack, John Bamford

Channing. Francis Allston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lamont, Norman

Stroyan, John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sullivan, Donal

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N.

Crean, Eugene

Lloyd-George, David

Thornton, Percy M.

Cremer, William Randal

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

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Lough, Thomas

Tuff, Charles

Cullinan, J

Lundon, W.

Ure, Alexander

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lyell, Charles Henry

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheffield

Delany, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Dickson, Charles Scott

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dobbie, Joseph

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

M'Fadden, Edward

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

Doughty, Sir George

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Ellice, Capt E C(S. Andrw's Bghs

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

Moss, Samuel

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

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wylie, Alexander

Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

Murnaghan, George

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R. B.(Inv'rn'ss

Murphy, John

Young, Samuel

Fisher, William Hayes

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flower, Sir Ernest

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Mr. Harry Lawson and Mr.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Levy.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Partington, Oswald

NOES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A.(Worc.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Forster, Henry William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Gardner, Ernest

Balcarres, Lord

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Garfit. William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Bigwood, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Gretton, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Elibank, Master of

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bousfield, William Robert

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Hill, Henry Staveley

Brymer, William Ernest

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Hoult, Joseph

292

293

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Milvain, Thomas

Royds, Clement Molynenx

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset

Hunt, Rowland

Morrell, George Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv

Kerr, John

Nicholson, William Graham

Tollemache, Henry James

Knowles, Sir Lees

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lambert, George

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Pemberton, John S. G.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Liddell, Henry

Percy, Earl

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Pierpoint, Robert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Wills, Sir Frederick(Bristol,N.)

Lowe, Francis William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lucas, Reginald J.(Porstmouth

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Maconochie, A. W.

Rankin, Sir James

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sir Charles Renshaw and

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

Ritchie,Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Mr. Mount.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 3, line 31, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 3, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'those bodies,' and insert the words 'the body and committees so established.'"
"In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'distress committees.'"
"In page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert the words, 'For the purposes of this provision a county borough with a population of less than fifty thousand shall be deemed to be included in the county in which it is for the purposes of The Local Government Act, 1888, deemed to be situated.'"
"In page 3, line 35, to leave out the word 'bodies,' and insert the words 'a central body and distress committees.'"
"In page 3, line 37, to leave out the word 'body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
"In page 4, line 10, after the word 'fund,' to insert the words 'as expenses for special or general county purposes, as the circumstances may require.''—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. GARDNERmoved to substitute "may if they think fit" for "shall" in line 38, so as to make the sub-section optional. However necessary the Hill might be in London or other populous districts, he thought that in those areas where there had been no evidence of need the less familiar the population were made with the proposed machinery the better. He could not understand why there should be set up the special committee compulsorily enjoined by this clause
294
when there was no body to deal with the unemployed and no necessity for any such body. He believed the result of the establishment of such a committee would in many cases result in its resolving itself into a fishing committee to find out unemployed and to bring to their notice the opportunity there was for getting assistance from public funds.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 38, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the words 'may if they think fit.'"—(Mr. Gardner.)
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would be unwilling to see this change made in the Bill. The provision had been in the Bill from the beginning, and no proposal had hitherto been made that the clause should be optional. The duties the committee were to carry out rendered it necessary that the system should be generally established, and the acceptance of the Amendment would prevent that being ensured.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid his hon. friend had spoken only of county districts, but the clause applied also to county boroughs, and they certainly would not like to be included in the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 17, to leave out the word 'bodies,' and insert the words 'a central body

295
and distress committees or a distress committee.'"
"In page 4, line 22, after the word 'board,' to insert the word 'a.'"
"In page 4, line 22, after the word 'central,' to insert the word 'body.'"
"In page 4, line 23, to leave out the words 'local bodies,' and insert the words 'a distress committee.'"
"In page 4, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'bodies are properly established for that area,' and insert the words 'the establishment.'"
"In page 4, line 24, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'of a central body and distress committees or of a distress committee for that area.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 26, to leave out the words 'any body,' and insert the words 'a central body or distress committee.'"
"In page 4, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'for the incorporation by an appropriate name and.'"
"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee and in the case of an order establishing a central body for the incorporation of that body by an appropriate name.'"
"In page 4, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words 'by that body.'"
"In page 4, line 31, to leave out the word 'general.'"
"In page 4, line 33, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee.'"
"In page 4, line 37, to leave out the word 'general.'"
"In page 5, line 1, to leave out the words 'local body,' and insert the words 'distress committee.'"
"In page 5, line 2, to leave out the words 'work may be provided by.'"
"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'may provide or contribute towards the provision of work.'"
"In page 5, line 5, after the word 'central,' to insert the word 'body.'"
"In page 5, line 5, to leave out the words 'local body,' and insert the words 'distress committee or special committee.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Amendment he desired to move was intended to extend the operation of the Act
296
to other works authorised by the Local Government Board" in addition to farm colonies. The case he had in mind was in such counties as Essex where they might desire to employ men upon land reclamation. This was work which might with advantage be carried out upon the foreshores of the Thames and other places. Under the Bill as it stood, it would be impossible to employ men on this kind of work because they could only be employed upon farm colonies. The Amendment he was submitting would give them the option of utilising other works for the unemployed which the Local Government Board might consider suitable. Any argument which could be used in favour of farm colonies could also be used with equal force in favour of the words which he desired to insert. In some respects the work of land reclamation might be even more suitable than work in farm colonies, because it would find immediate work for the unemployed at the least possible expense, without necessitating the erection of so many buildings and the provision of farm stock, etc. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 8, after the word 'colonies' to insert the words 'or other works approved by the Local Government Board.'" —(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BOUSFIELDthought if the Local Government Board had power to sanction other works it would be an advantage. He did not know whether the House remembered the result of the inquiries made by the Committee upon Distress through Want of Employment which reported in the year 1896, but it was pointed out in the Report of that Committee that under the existing law, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, the local authorities had power to do a great many things, and to initiate a good many works which might serve the purpose of relieving distress from want of employment. One recommendation of this Committee was that the Local Government Board should

297
encourage local authorities to try experiments of this kind. This was considered as a sort of experimental science because it was felt that those sitting in arm-chairs were not competent to decide what was the best method of dealing with the unemployed. The policy distinctly laid down by that Committee was that, as far as possible, the Local Government Board should criticise the various proposals made by local authorities, and view them favourably when they thought there was any possibility of success. Those powers still existed outside the powers conferred upon local authorities under this Bill. This Amendment had the effect of giving the Local Government Board power to make regulations in regard to the experiments to be made under this Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this Amendment did not seem to him in any way to interfere with the operation of the Act, and it would at all events give greater elasticity with regard to the different ways in which the central committee might provide employment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment, because it would enable local authorities to deal with foreshore reclamation and work of that sort, which would be just as advantageous as work upon farm colonies.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the words of the Amendment seemed to him very wide, and might suggest that the unemployed should be set to work in municipal workshops. While he agreed that the sanction of the Local Government Board afforded a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of this power, he could not accept the words suggested without further consideration.
MR. WHITMOREsaid he should be glad to see the sphere of employment under the Bill extended.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that unless some such words as those contained in the Amendment were inserted, the local authorities upon this question would find themselves in a worse position than they were now. He
298
remembered one occasion when a North-country public body set to work quite a large number of unemployed to plant a very large moor in the borough with a belt of trees Under the Bill as it stood such work could not be undertaken because they would be limited to farm colonies. If any town preferred to employ a few hundred of their own workpeople in their own district upon useful work instead of sending them miles away in the country he thought they ought to be able to do so. Unless they inserted some such words as were included in the Amendment a great public authority like that in the town of Newcastle would be precluded from taking up such work as they did some ten or twelve years ago.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would consider the question on the Report stage, and perhaps the hon. Member would withdraw and bring up the point again.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELagreed to this course and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 5, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'any such body by agreement, 'and insert the words 'a central body.'"
"In page 5, line 11, after the word 'land,' to insert the words 'by agreement.'"
"In page 5, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'purpose of such farm colonies or for the purpose of offices,' and insert the words 'purposes of this Act.'"
"In page 5, line 16, after the word 'body, to insert the words 'or committee.'"
"In page 5, line 22, to leave out the words 'from farm colonies,' and insert the words 'of a central body.'"
"In page 5, line 27, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'central.'"
"In page 5, line 37, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee.'"
'In page 5, line 39, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee.'"
"In page 5, line 40, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee.'"
"In page 5, line 40, at the end, to insert the words '(1) for applying, with the necessary adaptations, to a distress committee having the powers of a central body regulations relating to a central body; and.'"
"In page 5, line 43, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'to the Board.'"

299
"In page 5, line 43, after the word 'body,' to insert the words 'or committee.'"
"In page 5, line 44, to leave out the words 'to the Board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BAIEDmoved an Amendment to leave out of Subsection 2 of Clause 5, the words "Scotland or."
MR. JOHN WILSONseconded the Amendment, and said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 8, to leave out the words 'Scotland or.'"—(Mr. Baird.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Scotland or' stand part of the clause."
MR. DOBBIEsaid it was felt in Scotland that this Bill was more urgently required than in England. In Scotland there was a strong objection to the acceptance of parochial relief. There was a strong spirit of independence which prevented the labouring class, even more than in England, from applying for relief to the parish authorities when for any reason they were unable to get employment. This Bill did provide for temporary employment, and the Scottish representatives felt that a measure which was admittedly required for England should also apply to Scotland, especially as it would be the only Bill dealing with this subject for three years at least because there was to be a Commission appointed, and if they attempted to extend this machinery to Scotland they would be met with the argument that, a Commission was sitting and that no legislation was possible until the Commission had reported. Therefore, he would appeal to the Government to extend this measure to Scotland now. Inadequate as it was, it would do something for the unemployed in Glasgow and other industrial centres in Scotland where machinery was required as urgently as South of the Tweed.
SIR CHARLES KENSHAWsaid he had always thought that caution was
300
characteristic of the Scottish people. In a House composed mainly of Englishmen a proposal far-reaching in its character and in its possible consequences had been accepted, and now it was proposed to extend the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. The Bill as it stood at present was applicable to England alone, and it was on that footing that it had been dealt with in its progress through Committee. Whatever might be the views of the Lord-Advocate as to the desirability or undesirability of making the Bill applicable to Scotland, he would admit that in order to adapt it to Scotland very considerable additions would have to be inserted in the Bill itself. The language of the Bill was quite inappropriate to Scotland. His objection to the proposal was that it had been suddenly sprung upon them. The question had never been considered in any way by those responsible for the administration of local affairs in Scotland. He had not had one representation made to him by a local authority in his own county or any part of Scotland. Scottish opinion had not been elicited upon it. He would remind the House that the Scottish Poor Law had always been essentially different from that of England, and that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had promised, he thought wisely, a Commission to inquire into the whole question of the administration of the Poor Law in England and Wales. It was most desirable that Scotland should also be included in the scope of the work of the Commission. He hoped that the inquiries would be carried on simultaneously by three separate Commissions. There were differences between the systems of Poor Law administration in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he believed that in past legislation these differences had always been maintained. It was very undesirable that the matter should be inquired into by one Commission. He objected to a proposal of this kind being sprung upon them at the last moment without an opportunity being given to the local authorities in Scotland to express their views as to whether the Bill should be extended to Scotland. He thought it was an exceedingly dangerous proposal. He could not say what view the public authorities would have on the

301
matter. No change ought to be made in the Poor Law administration of England or Scotland until they had had full and ample opportunity of considering the whole question in all its ramifications. For that reason he would resist the proposal to extend the Bill to Scotland.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he happened to be connected with an association of trade unions which represented the workmen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and in that respect he thought he could claim to represent the views of Scottish workmen. Whatever Scottish municipal opinion might be on the matter—and no doubt the hon. Baronet had more right to speak on that than himself—so far as he had been able to gather their opinion at congress, the workmen desired the extension of this Bill to Scotland. As to the question of necessity, surely the present law was more inadequate in Scotland than in England. In England they had power to grant relief to an able-bodied workman, but there was no such power in Scotland. If that was so, there was greater need for this particular Bill in Scotland than in England. If they were to judge of the necessity for the Bill from the state of unemployment in Glasgow the case was unanswerable. Glasgow spent during last winter £12,000 in dealing with the unemployed. That proved the necessity for something being done in order to relieve the unemployed there. Whatever might be the language used in the Bill, hunger meant hunger all the same. He did not think they ought to stick at the objection raised unless it was something unsurmountable. It was merely a question of drafting which could be arranged afterwards. If the Bill was not to be applied to Scotland they should have stronger arguments than they had yet heard. The great towns in the North of England would come under this Bill, and they would be liable to have the unemployed of Glasgow and other large towns across the Tweed coming to them if this measure was not extended to Scotland. In the North of England they did not desire that the Scottish unemployed should be able to do that. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not refuse to consider this matter.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, while he had not up to the present time had any intimation from Scottish sources that such a Bill was desired in Scotland, at the same time he could not but note that only one Member had opposed the extension of the Bill to Scotland. He did not know whether his Scottish friends had reflected as to whether all the provisions of the Bill were really applicable, say, to the Highland counties. To compulsorily establish labour bureaux and employment exchanges in the Highland counties did not seem at the first blush to be a very desirable provision. At the same time he did not see why the Bill could not be applied to other parts of Scotland and prove as useful there as in England. He really felt some difficulty in the matter, and he confessed he should have liked, had it been possible, to have had more time for the consideration of the proposal. Unfortunately the Committee must decide there and now whether Scotland should be included or not because on the Report stage Scotland could not be included. He did not feel that, on behalf of the Government, he could accept the Amendment, and he was afraid that he must again resort to the old expedient and leave the question to the judgment of the House.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked if it would not be possible to extend the Bill to Scotland now and reconsider it on the Report stage.
THE CHAIRMANsuggested that, as there was also an Amendment to extend the Bill to Ireland, the more convenient course would probably be to delete altogether Sub-section 2 of Clause 5.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government would accept both Amendments—the one extending the Bill to Scotland and the other extending it to Ireland—on the same terms, namely, that they should be open to reconsideration at a later stage.
MR. DOBBIEsuggested that the Lord - Advocate might draft the phraseology necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland and consult some, of the Scottish Members in doing so.
THE LORD - ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)said there would be no difficulty in the matter. It would merely be a question of drafting an interpretation clause translating the English terms into the appropriate 'Scottish terms.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 8, to leave out Subjection (2)."—(Mr. Baird.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause (Duration of Act).
"This Act shall continue in force for three years from the date of the passing thereof, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determine, and at the expiration of that period, unless this Act is so continued as aforesaid, The Local Government Board shall make such orders as they think necessary for dissolving the central bodies and distress committees established under this Act and transferring their property and liabilities; and for the purposes of such transfer Sections 85, 86, and 88 of The Local Government Act, 1894 (which relate to current rates, existing securities and debts, and pending contracts, etc.) shall apply with such modifications and adaptations as may be made by order of The Local Government Board." — (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it would be recognised that there was a genuine desire to assist the Government in getting the Bill through the House. On the Opposition side there would be no desire for prolonged discussion on the Report and Third Reading stages, and he hoped the Bill would be put down as the first order on Monday.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would consider that suggestion in relation to the general business of the House.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEmoved a new clause defining "workmen" as including workwomen for the purposes of this Act.
304
He was aware that the President of the Local Government Board had informed the House that the language of the Bill at present included women as well as men. In view of possibilities he wished to make assurance doubly sure, and, therefore, he hoped the clause would be accepted. He begged to move.
Clause.
"For the purposes of this Act, the term 'workmen' shall include workwomen, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding."— (Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now real a second time."
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary and might be injurious, not in regard to this Kill, but in regard to others. It would be bad drafting. There was not the slightest doubt that the Bill did apply to female workers.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the Amendment was only objected to because it was unnecessary.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was quite unnecessary.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether he was to understand that the word "workmen" included workwomen.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that was so.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be reported to the House."
MR. KEIR HARDIEappealed to the Prime Minister to put down the Bill as the first order on Monday, as it was possible that there might be contention

305
about it in the House of Lords. Although he did not accept the Bill in its present form as satisfactory he was prepared to co-operate with hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and to limit discussion as much as possible on Monday in order to get the Bill through.
MR. CROOKSsaid he only wished to re-echo that statement.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that in view of what had to be done before the Bill could pass into law, he considered it would be desirable to take it first on Monday. It was understood, he supposed, that the House would give the Government the same assistance on the Report stage and on the Third Reading as they had so generously accorded to-day.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid a division had not been taken on the proposal to extend the Bill to Scotland, but he had still as strong an apprehension in regard to it as he expressed at an earlier stage of the business. He would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a very short opportunity indeed had been given to the people of Scotland even to ascertain what the provisions of this measure were. This was only proposed now for the first time, and certainly there had been no opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their views. He protested against this method of legislating in regard to Scotland.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he was intimately aquainted with the system of local government in Scotland, and he thought this Bill would be exceedingly useful in that country. They had no able-bodied Poor Law relief in Scotland, and people connected with the various trades when thrown out of work had no legal means of assistance, and could only be kept alive by private liberality. He had consulted a good many Scottish Members on this subject, and they were quite friendly to the proposal to extend the Bill to Scotland. He did not think it was at all likely to be abused.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he was delighted that they were going to have the benefit of this Bill in Scotland. He did not think the right hon. Baronet would get many people to support him in saying that it had been sprung on Scotland at the last moment. A case in which a proposal had been sprung on them at the last moment was Clause 5 of the Churches Bill, but he did not wish to go back on that matter.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid there were one or two matters on which he desired information from the representative of the Treasury. Did the Public Works Loans Commissioners really attend any meeting at all as a body? He had been making inquiries and he could not discover that they gave any attendance. If they did not attend, their appointments should not be renewed for the next five years. In 1900–1901, the amount of money asked was £7,000,000,last year it was £4,500,000, and this year the amount asked was the same as last year. What was the reason the Commissioners were not lending so much money as formerly? What was the amount of the outstanding balances last year? They ought to know what was the average rate of interest for the year. In 1898 the rate was £2 15s. 6d. In 1890 it was £2 17s.; in 1885 it was £3 1s. 10d., and in 1870 it was £3 2s. 3d. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury could say whether the Treasury covered themselves in regard to these loans. If the average rate was £2 19s. 6d., then a

307
deficit might arise in regard to the transactions of the Public Works Loans Commission. He noticed a new point in the Bill. There was a clause to enable an arrangement to be entered into between the Public Works Loans Commissioners and the London County Council. What he wanted to know was what was the contemplated arrangement, because there were a number of loans by the London County Council which bore interest at the rate of three and a half per cent, per annum, and these loans were to be repaid on the 31st March, 1923. He understood that a kind of consolidation of these various loans was contemplated, but he supposed that that would not alter the length of the precise period for the repayment of the same.
Another point to which he wished to call attention was that it had been the custom for many years to write off various sums of money which had been lent by the Public Works Loans Commissioners to tenant farmers for drainage. The Public Works Loans Commissioners had no security for these advances, and when the tenant came into default the landlords stepped in and got the benefit of the money advanced. What he wanted to know was whether the Public Works Loans Commissioners had any claim against the landlord when he resumed the possession of the land. Then another item was the loans made to the Fishery Board for Scotland to provide boats for the crofting fishermen in the North of Scotland. He believed that the amount was almost exhausted and that the losses incurred had not arisen from any unwillingness on the part of the crofters to pay back the money to the Fishery Board, but from the fact that the boats provided for the crofters were not suitable for the purpose intended. He understood that a considerable amount of loss had been incurred by fishermen themselves.
*SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that this was a Bill which, on the face of it, materially affected local authorities, and especially the large municipalities. He wanted to know whether the Public Works Loans Commission was a real Commission, or only a phantom body like the Board of Trade, the work being done by the Treasury. If it were
308
a real body, it ought not to be entirely composed, as at present, of eminent bankers and financiers, but should have upon it at least some representatives of the local authorities able to give municipal information and experience to the Commission. He saw that an opportunity had been taken by the Commission from its last Report to endeavour, by a penal rate of interest on long loans, to make the loans repayable within twenty years. He altogether demurred to that, because it meant that there would be additional pressure put on the present generation and that Public Works for health, sanitation, and the like might be delayed or prevented, contrary to the public interest. He also wanted to know whether the Commissioners were limited in number by statute. He hoped the House would have full information on these points.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not agree with his hon. friend that any just criticisms could be urged against the Public Works Loans Commissioners. He thought that the principle of the composition at the board was sound, but he wanted to know whether the members got a salary.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said that he could assure the hon. Member for Islington that the Commission was a very live one, and not a phantom. So far as he knew the Commissioners did their work exceedingly well, and their names were a sufficient guarantee for the future. They got no salary. The hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark had asked what was the reason for the reduction of the money asked for this year from £7,000,000 to £4,500,000? The reasons for that reduction were that, owing to the condition of the money market, the Treasury thought it desirable to suggest to the Commissioners that they should confine their loans to purposes which Parliament specially desired to encourage; and, further, that the loans should only be advanced to those local authorities which were least capable of helping themselves. The arrangement between the Public Loans Commission and the London

309
County Council required Parliamentary sanction, but it had been made for their mutual convenience.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON, (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to move the omission of this clause. It would be remembered that when the differentiation between stripped and unshipped tobacco was under discussion last year, it was pointed out that that constituted a protective tax in favour of the unstripped tobacco. The Isle of Man House of Keys had not adopted this protective tax. As a matter of fact the Isle of Man, like the Isle of Wight, was against any protective taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said that there was no protection in the differentiation between stripped and unstripped tobacco, but his contention was that there was; and that being so, an undue disadvantage was being placed on the manufacturers in this country compared with manufacturers elsewhere. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, if this protective tax was good for England, it should not also be good for the Isle of Man.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Major Seely.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that he would
310
not argue the question as to what took place last year when the differentiation took place, but he could assure the hon. Member that the duty on strips was imposed with no protective intention. It had been the practice of the Tynwald Court in the Isle of Man to assimulate the duties to those in this country, but they had certain variations. For instance, they had not increased the tea duty in 1904, and they had nit put on the sugar duty in the same year that it was imposed in the United Kingdom. When duties were imposed by the Isle of Man Legislature they were devoted to local purposes and were not paid into the Exchequer. The Isle of Man was entitled to impose what duties it pleased, subject to ratification by Parliament here, and this House was not accustomed to interfere—[Loud cries from the IRISH Benches of "Home Rule"]— with its discretion, unless the Tynwald passed such legislation as would lead to smuggling or to a serious interference with the revenue of this country. All that was asked for in this Bill was to confirm the taxes imposed by the Tynwald.
MR. LOUGHsaid he understood that the Customs authorities of the Isle of Man were under the control of the Customs authorities here, and that the latter were entirely controlled by the Treasury. He wanted to know whether the Customs authorities would give statistics in regard to the additional duties in the Isle of Man on tobacco, tea, spirits, ale, and beer.
MR. FLYNNsaid that the Committee ought to have a full explanation as to the necessity for this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had justified the charging of different duties in different portions of the United Kingdom, but they had a repudiation of that doctrine by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In Ireland they had for many years urged on this reform, and they had always been met with the statement from the Treasury that it could not be introduced because of the insuperable Customs difficulties, yet it could be done in the case of the Isle of Man. He hoped when the

311
time came to discuss this question with regard to wider issues and a larger area that they would not find the Government advancing one argument at one time and another at another.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

REVENUE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said in this Bill there was only one contentious clause. The main portion of this carried out the suggestions of the Committee for the free use of alcohol for industrial purposes. He proposed to strike out the contentious portion of the. Bill, and he hoped, that being so, the House would allow it to go to Second Reading.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had no objection to the Bill being given a Second Reading but he thought that when an arrangement had been come to with regard to this matter it should be respected.
MR. LOUGHsuggested whether, under the circumstances and the date at which the session had arrived, it would not be better to confine this Bill to one clause dealing with free alcohol,
312
so as to insure the Bill passing on Monday.
Second Reading deferred to Monday next.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
IRISH EDUCATION (AFFLICTED CHIL- DREN) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRE- LAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

JUDICATURE AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 31st day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock till Monday-next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance.

2. Coal Mines (Weighing of Minerals).

3. Shipowners' Negligence (Remedies).

4. Compensation for Damage to Crops.

5. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.)

6. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1).

7. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 2).

8. Millport Piers and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation.

9. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

10. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

13. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16).

14. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17).

15. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

16. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5).

17. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).

18. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8).

19. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

20. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

21. Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order.

22. Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order.

23. Gas Orders Confirmation.

24. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

25. Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3).

26. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

218

27. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation.

28. Stonehaven Harbour Order Confirmation.

29. Esk Valley Power-Gas Order Confirmation.

30. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

31. Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Consolidation) Order Confirmation.

32. Glasgow University Order Confirmation.

33. Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation.

34. Hitchin and District Gas.

35. Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.

36. Worcestershire County Council (Bridges).

37. Tees Valley Water Board.

38. Whitby Urban District Council.

39. Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies.

40. Western Valleys (Monmouth shire) Water and Gas.

41. Andover Lighting and Power.

42. Great Western Railway Additional Powers.

43. Southend and Colchester Light Railways.

44. Whitechapel and Bow Railway.

45. Great Northern Railway (Ireland).

46. London County Council(Money).

47. Hessle Gas.

48. Great Central Railway (Pension Fund).

49. Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District).

50. Workington Harbour and Dock.

51. South Lancashire Tramways.

52. Matlock Bath Improvement.

53. Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council.

54. Formby Township.

55. Sheffield University.

56. Midland Railway.

57. Bootle Corporation.

58. London Gas.

59. Caledonian Railway.

60. North British Railway (General Powers).

61. Rhondda Urban District Council.

62. Rotherham, Maltby, and Laugh-ton Railway.

63. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power.

219

64. Woolwich Borough Council.

65. Skegness Water.

66. Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1).

67. Metropolitan Electric Tramways.

68. Dublin United Tramways.

69. London and North-Western Railway.

70. Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.

71. Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

72. Edgware and Hampstead Railway.

73. Gosport and Fareham Tramways.

74. Bristol Blind Asylum.

75. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

76. Blackpool Improvement.

77. County of London Electric Supply Company.

78. Nottingham Corporation.

79. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

80. Liverpool Corporation.

81. Great Central Railway.

82. Humber Conservancy.

83. Littlehampton Urban District Council.

84. Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting).

85. Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board.

86. Ealing Corporation.

87. Malvern Water.

88. Central Electric Supply.

89. Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company.

90. Sandgate Urban District Council.

91. Corbett Estate.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Preston
220
Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H L.]; Common Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Wigan Corporation Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on Thursday the 27th of July discharged, and Bill committed for Monday next.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Thames Conservancy Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Heckmondwike Improvement Bill. Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Stations and units in which cases of epizootic lymphangitis have occurred in the United Kingdom.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty-ninth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  PUBLIC WORKS, IRELAND.
  Seventy-third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ended March 31st, 1905.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended March, 1905.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1904.
  Appendix, Section 1, to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1904.

  SUPPLY OF FOOD AND RAW MATERIAL IN TIME OF WAR—(ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of the supply of food and raw material in time of war; with minutes of evidence and appendices (Vol. I. Report; Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence; Vol. III. Appendices).
  STATISTICS.
  Statistical abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1893 to 1902–1903 (as far as particulars can be stated). Thirty-first Number.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3471. China (Ichang).
  No. 3472. United States (Savannah).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, COLERAINE URBAN DISTRICT).
  Order made by the Urban District Council of Coleraine and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 276, of 1904), as furnished by the various pilotage authorities.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (LONDON AND MIDDLESEX) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in opposition
  222
  to this Bill, which considerably affects the County Council of Middlesex. In 1899 a Bill was introduced entitled the Local Government Bill, and in that measure a provision was made for placing Hornsey and a portion of Middlesex within the jurisdiction of the London County Council. When the Bill was passing through this House I was very anxious that no portion of the area within the jurisdiction of the Middlesex County Council should be handed over to London without some compensation being given and in order to find out whether it was clear that such compensation could be paid under the Bill I asked the then President of the Council, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, whether he was of opinion that compensation could be given in the case which I quoted without special words being inserted to that effect. The noble Duke's Answer was—
  "Yes, certainly. The Local Government Board are advised that there is full power to compensate any authority for loss of rateable value."
  An Answer to a similar effect was given in the House of Commons by the present Prime Minister. The Bill passed without any amendment in this House. There had already been two cases in which compensation had been granted to county authorities on this ground; but in 1904 a decision was given by your Lordships' House which altogether precluded the idea of compensation being given in such cases. This measure, I admit, has already been before a Committee of this House, who decided against the insertion of any compensatory clause for the county of Middlesex. In 1900 the legal transfer of the parish of Hornsey was made to the County Council of London, and they have exercised jurisdiction there since that date. Therefore, as the arrangement had been come to between the two parties prior to 1904 there can be no doubt that the Middlesex authority have a claim in justice to compensation; but now that this judgment has been given by your Lordships' House they are precluded from getting compensation under the scheme. The matter is a very serious one for the county of Middlesex, because they lose something like £2,000 a year in rates. I hope this House will bear in mind the promise which was given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and will recognise that it is not unreasonable that the

  223
  Middlesex County Council should have the right of placing before the Commissioners any claim they may think they are entitled to make for compensation. I only ask that the County Council of Middlesex shall have the right to make that claim.
  EARL CARKINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has correctly said that this is a very serious matter, and I think we have some right to express surprise at this opposition being sprung on us at this late stage of the Bill, when it is down for Third Reading. The circumstances of the parish of South Hornsey are such that the Middlesex County Council derived by means of the county rate from that parish prior to its transfer a considerably larger sum annually than was expended by them on the parish, and therefore they claim that the London County Council ought to pay them a further sum by way of compensation for the loss of the rateable value in question. The noble Earl is pre-eminently a fair-minded man, and I would ask him, if that is to be done, whether it ought not to go the other way as well, and, if there is a loss, that the County Council should be recouped. It does not follow that because one rating authority suffers financial loss by the transfer of a part of its rating area that the authority which takes it over secures any gain at all. The London County Council does a great deal more for the benefit of those who live under its jurisdiction than the Middlesex County Council. For instance, they provide bands, open spaces, and parks, and there are statutory obligations in addition in regard to drainage, fire brigades, and the administration of the building laws. I submit, therefore, that if they are called upon to pay compensation for the loss of rateable value, they will have to pay twice over. Moreover, it would be a distinct premium on starving a district. I submit that this is not a fair proposal, and I hope the House will, in the interests of the ratepayers of London, pass the Bill as it stands.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not often differ from the noble Earl who has just sat down, but on this occasion I differ entirely from him, and I will venture to put the case as it seems to me for the Middlesex County Council.
  224
  When the London Government Bill of 1899 was passing through Parliament the Middlesex County Council was very much exercised at the doubtful state of the law with regard to this particular question, and were very anxious to get introduced into the Bill safeguards which would ensure their receiving compensation for any loss that might be incurred in rateable value owing to a portion of their area being handed over to the county of London. There were two pieces dealt with. There was a small piece in Clerkenwell handed over to the county of Middlesex, and South Hornsey was handed over by Middlesex to the county of London. The Clerkenwell portion was so small that it is hardly worth talking about, but there can be no doubt that the county of Middlesex suffered considerable loss in rateable value in respect of the portion of South Hornsey which was handed over to the county of London. The idea then was that in all these cases compensation would be given by the gaining body to the losing body, and two special cases had been decided under the Act of 1888 by the Court of Appeal. When this Bill was in the other House of Parliament two of the Members for Middlesex did bring forward an Amendment to safeguard their position, but an appeal was made to them by the Leader of the House, the present Prime Minister, who assured the Middlesex Members that under the existing law, which would be embodied in the Act, Middlesex could be compensated for any loss it might sustain by reason of the transfer; and he added—
  "I understand it has been laid down by a learned Judge that it was the duty of the Local Government Board or the authority concerned to see that such redress was made."
  That was a considerable promise by the First Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. The Bill in due time came to this House, and the noble Earl opposite, Lord Jersey, also proposed the insertion of a clause to safeguard the interests of Middlesex. On that occasion the Duke of Devonshire, the then Leader of your Lordships' House, said—
  "I am unable to accept this Amendment. The subject was discussed in the House of Commons and a conclusion was arrived at, to which I adhere, that this is a matter which must be dealt with by scheme."
  Lord Jersey then asked—
  "Is the noble Duke of opinion that compensation could be given in a case of this kind

  225
  without special words being inserted to that effect?"
  —and this was the Duke of Devonshire's reply—
  "Certainly. The Local Government Board are advised there is full power to compensate any neighbouring county for loss of rateable value. This power has been exercised and there are reported decisions."
  Upon this Lord Jersey withdrew his Amendment, and it seems to me that the present Prime Minister and the noble Duke who was then Lord President of the Council and Leader of this House, are really bound to see that justice is done to Middlesex in the terms of the pledges they then gave. The Bill was eventually passed, and the question of adjustment of values between the two counties was referred to the Commissioners. The inquiry was completed, and there had been negotiations between the two parties with a view to coming to a settlement; but then came the decision in the House of Lords in what is known as the Caterham case. The Assistant Commisioner said that in consequence of that decision the Middlesex County Council were out of Court, that they had no grounds whatever for their case, and he declined to go any further into it. In the first place, the Caterham case did not arise out of the Act of 1899 at all, but out of the Act of 1888, and if you compare the clauses in the latter Act with those in the Act of 1899 you will find they differ considerably, and it is by no means certain that the same Judges having to decide on a case arising out of the 1888 Act and a case arising out of the 1899 Act would come to the same decision.
  My point with regard to this Bill is this, that it was perfectly competent for the noble Marquess, in producing this scheme, to have introduced into it a clause that would have given some right of compensation to the county of Middlesex in fulfilment of the pledges of his colleagues. There are precedents for that. Bills hare been passed through both Houses quite recently containing similar provisions. Last year there was the Bristol Extension Act and the Portsmouth Provisional Order Confirmation Act, both containing clauses of a similar character to that asked for by Middlesex on this occasion, so that the noble Marquess would have had plenty of precedents for introducing such a clause in-
  226
  to the scheme comprised in this Bill. I think Middlesex has a double grievance. First, I think it suffers injustice in not receiving some compensation; and, secondly, I think Middlesex has a still greater grievance against the noble Marquess for not supporting his colleagues in fulfilling the pledges which they most solemnly gave to both Houses of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has stated the case very fully, but I should like to remark that the noble Earl beside him, Lord Carrington, rather confused the issue, because the arguments he used were addressed to the amount of compensation which should be given. That, of course, is a matter which must be left to a tribunal. The point which we urge is that some opportunity should be given to the Middlesex County Council to state their case for compensation, and that there should be a chance of recovering whatever compensation is thought to be just and right. I confess that, after the pledges given in both Houses of Parliament by responsible Ministers of the Crown, on the authority of the Government, I cannot see how the Government can possibly decline to grant the request of Middlesex in this matter. The noble Lord who has just sat down said that in other Bills before your Lordships' House—in the Portsmouth Bill and the Bristol Bill—a proviso such as we ask for was inserted, but I do not think he insisted on the fact that this action was taken after the Caterham judgment. If it was right, after the Caterham judgment, to put a clause into Bills to ensure compensation, surely it must be right to put the same clause into a Bill which deals with a scheme that was passed years before the Caterham judgment was given, and passed on the pledge of the Government that what the Caterham judgment has upset was the law of the land. The Middlesex County Council have a right to be placed in as good a position as they would have been in before that judgment.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, until the noble Duke rose I could not help thinking that the debate was taking the form of

  227
  the triangular duel of Mr. Midshipman Easy. Be that as it may, I hope that before I resume my seat I shall prove to your Lordships' satisfaction that the course which His Majesty's Government are taking in asking you to pass the Third Reading of this measure in its present form is really the only course which is open to them to pursue. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Carrington, seemed to assert that the measure had been sprung on your Lordships.
  EARI CARRINGTON: Not the measure. I was referring to Lord Jersey's opposition to the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the opposition was sprung upon anybody it was sprung upon myself. This measure has gone through its various stages in your Lordships' House, and it was only the day before yesterday that I received notice from a private source that there was to be opposition to it. As my noble friend Lord Jersey has told you, under the Local Government Act of 1899, by means of an Order in Council, Hornsey was separated from the county of Middlesex and handed over to the county of London. Immediately after the transfer took place representatives of Hornsey and Middlesex met for the purpose of adjusting the many arrangements that necessarily arise under such a transfer, and included in those arrangements was the question of compensation. Those meetings of the representatives extended over three years. It has been hinted that if the Middlesex County Council had acted with rapidity it might have been possible for them to have obtained their compensation before the Caterham judgment was given. That is not the fault of the Government; it is the fault of the Middlesex County Council. For three years they sat round a table discussing this question, and they were continually reminded that time was getting on. The London Government Act Commissioners approached them, urging upon them the necessity of arriving at some conclusion, but they received an answer dated June 23rd, 1903, from the clerk to the council, stating that he hoped shortly to be able to send a draft agreement to the Commissioners. In reply to a further communication from the Commissioners, the clerk wrote a letter on October 22nd,
  228
  1903, the last sentence of which was as follows—
  "I am, therefore, to ask that the Commissioners will be good enough to allow the matter to remain in abeyance for a short while longer."
  I think that shows that if the County Council of Middlesex had been a little more brisk in their operations they might have received compensation. The Commissioners continually urged them to come to a conclusion on the subject. Matters between the parties were not adjusted in 1904. The London Government Act Commissioners considered it necessary, after this delay, to hold an inquiry themselves, and at this inquiry the question of compensation for the transfer of course came in. It was while the Commissioners were considering the whole question of which compensation was a part that the judgment which is known as the Cater-ham judgment was given by your Lordships' House. I should like to correct my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth on one point. He seemed to think that directly the Caterham decision was given the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Thompson, heard no more evidence with regard to compensation. That is not absolutely correct. He went on with the case, and it was subsequently that he became convinced that the Caterham decision invalidated any further evidence on the question of compensation. I do not intend to go into the Caterham judgment from the legal point of view, but if this debate continues I have no doubt the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack will assist me by giving his version of that decision. The Caterham judgment overruled the Rochdale judgment, which in the Court of Appeal established the principle that compensation might be paid for rateable value. After the decision in the Caterham case the Commissioners were naturally unable to express any opinion with regard to the question of compensation.
  I now come to the pledges given by my predecessor the Duke of Devonshire, and by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, on which the Amendments that were moved on the part of Middlesex were withdrawn. At the time when these statements were made they were absolutely correct. The noble Duke and the Prime Minister were giving their opinion

  229
  on the law as it existed at that time under the Rochdale decision, and I maintain that in the circumstances they were absolutely justified in what they said. I cannot allow that they can be accused in any way of bad faith. Your Lordships will remember that a scheme was subsequently submitted to a Committee of the other House, and to a Committee of your Lordships' House. Opposition was raised to it owing to the omission of any provision for compensation, but in both cases the Committee overruled the objection, and maintained that after the Caterham judgment the question of compensation could not possibly be considered.
  It is important that this measure should be carried through without delay. There are other cases hanging on this Bill which will be influenced by the decision of your Lordships' House—Hackney and Edmonton, Hornsey Borough and London, Penge and London, Kent and London, Surrey and London, and Barnes and London. The hamlet of Penge, prior to the passing of the Act of 1899, formed part of the county of London, but was transferred for the convenience of administration to the county of Kent, and was made an urban district. It had at the time of its transference a rateable value of over £155,000, and contributed in proportion to that rateable value to the expenses of the county of London. It would be inequitable to make London pay compensation to Middlesex in respect of South Hornsey without making the county of Kent pay compensation to London for the loss of Penge. There are many other cases in which the same principle is involved. In consideration of the fact that other cases depend on the passing of this scheme, and in consideration also of the fact that the Commissioners will be very much hampered in proceedings now pending if your Lordships reject this measure, I must ask the.House to pass the Bill in its present form.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I think after what my noble friend has said your Lordships will be glad to hear something about what is called the Caterham case. There is some misapprehension on the subject. The only question decided by the House of Lords was that the language of a particular statute on which a claim for compensation was founded was
  230
  inadequate to give that compensation. Your Lordships held unanimously that the words "adjustment of income" did not include compensation. That was the sole judgment arrived at by your Lordships' House, and as it was arrived at in May, 1904, it is rather late in the day to be discussing the question on the Third Reading of this Bill when it is impossible to make an Amendment and your Lordships must either accept or reject the Bill. I protest against its being said that the House of Lords laid down the principle that compensation could not be given. No such principle was laid down. The question involved was the construction of particular words in a particular Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I only intervene for one moment in this discussion to point out to your Lordships what is the position with regard to this Bill. This Provisional Order has been before a Committee of the House of Commons, and it has also been before a Committee of your Lordships' House, and your Lordships' Committee, which was presided over by Lord Lauderdale, had not only to decide whether or not, in their opinion, the Caterham case applied, but they decided the case on its merits. The question whether in this particular matter the relief prayed for by the petitioners should be given was most carefully considered by the Committee. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go into the details of the case. Suffice it for me to say that, after having gone into the question on its merits, apart altogether from whether the Caterham case applied or not, the Committee decided that, in their opinion, this relief ought not to be granted.
  *THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House which considered this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to state the facts briefly. In the first instance, counsel argued at great length whether the Caterham case applied, and we decided unanimously that it did. Counsel then asked to be allowed to put the case before us on its merits. We consented, and the matter was fully gone into. We finally came to the conclusion that there was nothing special in this case to induce us to depart from the principle laid down in the Caterham case.

  231
  That is really the A B C of what took place, and I thought I ought to state it. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more, as the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) has explained the matter very kindly to your Lordships, and the noble Earl who spoke last has also placed the case clearly before the House. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Bill being rejected.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I frankly admit the inconvenience of opposing the Bill at this stage, and I should not think of putting your Lordships to the trouble of dividing. I may say that no one questions for a moment the bona fides of the two Ministers who made the statement referred to in 1899; but I think what has happened must tend to diminish the value of statements made by Ministers in charge of Bills.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS,who was received with cheers in recognition of his having that day completed his 87th year, said: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for renewing the kindly greeting you gave to me on this day last year. It encourages one to fight on as long as I can for what I believe to be right. I think it will be for the convenience of the House that as my remarks on this Bill will be somewhat general in character I should make them before the noble and learned Earl leaves the Woolsack. My attitude in regard to this Bill is a thoroughly mundane one. My position as regards the Presbyterian Church in Scotland is precisely that which was so effectively and clearly stated by my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson the other day as regards himself. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, have received a circular which has been sent round
  232
  by the Free Church containing the Amendments I have put down. Those Amendments were drawn up by that body, and I have been requested to move them. Their object is to guard against the establishment of the principle of the State taking possession of property and dealing with it without the full sanction, of the owners previously given, and that they are not to be deprived of any property which they can show their capacity beneficially to use. These are the objects of the Amendments, which in no way interfere with the intended action of the Bill. The purport of the Amendments is to secure that the property dealt with in this Bill shall be distributed by the Commission in such a way as to leave to those who are now possessed of it all that they can reasonably require for the purposes for which they hold it.
  This property is as much the property of the Free Church as is the property of any of your Lordships his own. The title is absolute and indefeasible It is a title granted on appeal by the highest Court of the realm. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chanceller and the other noble and learned Lords who heard the appeal in this House sat for seventeen days and gave the matter the fullest consideration. It was said by the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill that there were only twenty-seven of these Free Church congregations. It matters not if they could only say "We are seven," but I am credibly informed that he greatly understated —of course unintentionally—the number, and that there are from 170 to 180 organised congregations. I quite admit that the state of things which has been produced in Scotland should be remedied. The Amendments I am going to move are intended to improve the Bill, and in no way to interfere with its progress. I will read to your Lordships a letter showing the state of excitement on this subject. It is dated from the United Free Church Offices, 1, Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, June 22nd, 1905, and signed by Dr. Rainy, and it proceeds—
  "It is necessary now to apply our utmost strength to procure the Amendments which the general mind of the Church, supported, I am glad to say, by the Press of the country, feels to be essential."
  How is this to be brought about? By two means. Heaven and earth are to be

  233
  moved in furtherance of these measures. The letter proceeds—
  "It is hoped that you will, with the help, where possible, of one or two intelligent and influential friends, apply to voters of weight in your constituency, asking them to write as soon as possible to their M.P."
  And then there is this postscript—
  "The foregoing relates to practical effort. May I suggest that the situation calls for earnest prayer."
  And who is the writer of this remarkable letter? No less a person than Dr Rainy. Thus the constituencies are to he moved, and prayers are to be offered up, and all for what? In order that property which has been given by law to one body may be taken away and given to another.
  But this Bill I admit to be a necessity of the situation, and I think His Majesty's Government deserve every credit for bringing it forward in the interest of peace and goodwill in Scotland. But the Bill involves a principle which I hold to be full of danger. It is another case of State interference with property. If your Lordships admit the principle that the State can step in and say, "Here is property absolutely belonging to one set of persons, but we think others ought to have it," and then distribute it amongst those others, where are you to stop? There may be some day a Government with a socialist Prime Minister and Home Secretary, and they may bring in a Bill to distribute private property. They may say to your Lordships, "You have more than is adequate for your wants." They may say to the popular and genial Leader of the Government in this House, the Marquess of Lansdowne, "You have Bowood, and you have Lansdowne House and other places. You cannot want them all. We will take some from you, but we will leave you enough to take a flat in Victoria Street or a top floor in Hankey's Mansions." That may be an exaggeration, but the principle in this Bill is one which may be applied to private property as well as to corporate property, and that is why I venture to ask your Lordships to be careful in dealing with this measure.
  It may be said that this is an exceptional Bill, but since 1870 we have had pretty good experience in exceptional
  234
  legislation. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne found out in Ireland what exceptional legislation meant and how it grew. This exceptional legislation, which began in Ireland, moving like an Irish bog, has already crossed the Irish Sea to Scotland, where it settled itself in the crofts of Mull, and now your Lordships have this exceptional legislation in every one of your estates both in England and Scotland through the Agricultural Holdings Act. Thus, when you break through sound principles, the evil thing catches. When I was a member of St. James's Vestry a motion was made, on the principle of the Irish Land Act of 1870, that there should be set up by the Government in London Courts for the purpose of fixing the rents of houses and business premises. That shows how this principle grows. Let me state what the present feeling of Socialist agitators in this country is with regard to property. I see the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice in his place. Lord Alverstone will recollect that three or four years ago he was chairman of a meeting at the Society of Arts, the object of which was to discuss and stop, if possible, the wild, ill-considered municipal trading of the present day. Mr. Burns, M.P., was there, and he attacked me for something I had said, and when he sat down I asked him this question, which, like an honest man, he answered with perfect candour. I asked—
  "Is it or is it not the case that you and those who agree with your policy mean this as the ultimate object to which you are striving, that all property of all kinds, in land, in manufactures, in ships, in everything, and all distribution of property should be in the hands of a labour-governed State."
  Mr. Burns simply stood up, bowed, and said "Yes." It is good to take stock of the situation, and in order to show how we stand I will remind your Lordships of a congress held a few days ago at which representatives of all kinds of societies attended. There were represented the International Congress, the National Reform Union, the Indian Home Rule Society, the new Reform Club, about a dozen trades unions, and about as many Liberal, Radical, and Progressive Associations in London. At that congress Mr. Pickersgill moved, and Mr. O'Donnell

  235
  seconded, the adoption of a programme including the following:—State payment of Members and election expenses; adult suffrage; one man one vote; State registration of voters; the establishment of a universal system of old-age pensions free from pauperism; the democratisation of the land laws—that is, if they were in power they would take advantage of this Bill and take your property; equalisation of rates; fair-rent Courts; Home Rule all round, Ireland first and India second; the abolition of the hereditary principle in legislation, and protection of workmen's rights and power of organisation by legislation. That is, they would establish unchecked the tyranny of trade unionism. There is a paper called The Clarion which represents Socialist views in this country, and I have been told as a fact that the editor of that paper says he is eagerly and anxiously looking to what happens to this Bill in your Lordships' House. Thus unless something is put in which will give security against the abuse of what you intend to be a wise provision for the good of the United Free Church, our Socialists will trade upon it as soon as this Bill passes, and they are in a position to do so.
  I would press on your Lordships the necessity of dealing very carefully with this question, and I ask that you should give greater security than there is in the Bill that the Free Church will be allowed to hold as much property as they can reasonably and legitimately require for the purposes for which they exist. I venture also to impress upon you that you should insist upon something being put in the Bill to secure that the property is taken voluntarily. I have in my hand a pamphlet in which reference is made to a manifesto that was issued before this question got into its present state and before the Elgin Commission. In this statement the Free Church intimated that they desired to retain only what was necessary for their Church, and hand on the remainder to the Crown. Their ipsissima verba are these—
  "We claim, as an undeniable right, possession of Free Church property to the extent the Church may require it, with a reasonable measure of opportunity to ascertain her requirements; but we have no desire or intention to retain anything which may be
  236
  beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Provided the scope of the judgment in congregational property was first admitted, as has been done in regard to the general property, and further, provided possession was given to the extent indicated, we should not only loyally submit to, but gladly welcome, the lawful authority which should undertake to administer the remainder."
  If such an offer was made why was it not accepted? Why was the state of consternation that existed in Scotland not put an end to at once by accepting this offer instead of waiting all these months and hiving the Elgin Commission and this Bill? At any rate that shows a readiness on the part of the Free Church to give up all that they cannot beneficially use. What I want further, as said, is to secure that there shall be a provision that what is done up to a certain point is done with the full knowledge, wish, and consent of the legal owners of the property. If it was enacted that the consent of the owner was required, that would guarantee your Lordships against the dangers which might possibly threaten property if this principle were pushed at any time in the direction I have stated. I will adopt, as my concluding remarks, the words contained in a letter issued from the office of the Free Church of Scotland, and which are as follows—
  "I beg your Lordships' earnest consideration of this Bill, which not only deeply affects the interests of the Free Church, but also raises most important questions of property, and proposes to introduce into legislation perilous and far-reaching principles."
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, on the Question for the House resolving itself into Commitee, I wish to say two or three words which, I think, will have the effect rather of accelerating business than of retarding it. It had been my intention to put Amendments on the Paper, but, on reflection, I decided not to do so, and I do not intend in the Committee stage to trouble the House with either Amendments or observations. My reason is this, that I have to view the matter as a practical man speaking on the 4th of August. I called the attention of the House on the Second Reading to some of the grave principles which I thought were involved in the Bill, and

  237
  which I intended to develop in Committee by Amendments; but I am bound to say that while the House, during the debate on the Second Reading, bestowed on me the generous attention which it is their custom to bestow on infrequent speakers, I felt that I made no headway, and I found, to change the metaphor, the ground around me extremely hard frozen. Even from very sound politicians I got extremely little encouragement. The real truth is that this is, as Lord Tweedmouth said, an agreed Bill, the agreement being that noble Lords on the other side should shut their ears very hard when the Question is put on Clause 5, while noble Lords on this side of the House should I pass by on the other side during the greater part of the proceedings.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not admit that. Personally, I am entirely in favour of Clause 5.
  LORD ROBERTSON: I do not know whether the noble Lord's colleagues are. When I find that the Government have at their disposal the vast forces of which any Government disposes at this time of the year, General Waldegrave and his faithful ally, General August, it would require greater courage than I possess to carry oat this enterprise. There are two advantages which I think the House will derive from my abstaining from moving Amendments. One is that I shall not inflict upon them several very tedious speeches, and I daresay that if I had done so that dulness would have proved infectious in some other quarters. The other advantage is this—great principles are involved, and I shrink strongly from crystallising opinion on this side of the House in favour of the dangerous principles to which I object. At present on this side of the House I believe there is a half-contemptuous tolerance for this measure as a Scottish experiment. If specific Amendments were put down and pressed to a division, the effect would be that good sound Conservatives would be committed to negative propositions of absolute soundness, and would specifically adopt measures which in the generality they are willing to allow to pass by
  238
  Upon these grounds, I think I do wisely, in the interest of the social convenience of the House, and in the interest of those great principles I have at heart, to abstain from opposition to the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

  Clause 1:—
  *The EARL OF WEMYSSmoved Amendments providing that the Commission should allocate the property "so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use," and that among the circumstances to which they should have regard should be included "the judgments of the Law Courts, and any special historical or other associations attaching to particular parts of the said property."
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use adequate.'"
  "In line 9, after the word 'Church' to insert the words 'and whereas the Free Church had previously made public intimation that they were willing to surrender to the Sovereign power the property in question in so far as beyond their capacity to administer according to the trusts thereof.'"
  "In page 1, line 21, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use'"; and
  "In line 23, after the word 'case' to insert the words 'including the judgments of the Law Courts, and any special historical or other associations attaching to particular parts of the said property.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW)said he was sorry to say that His Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendments, as they would limit the discretion of the Commissioners and alter the whole basis of the Bill. The first sub-section of Clause 1, which the noble Earl desired to amend, was the key of the whole Bill; and, subject to the provisions in the two following sub-sections, the intention of the Governmen was to give the Commissioners a free hand. The word

  239
  "adequate," which his noble friend desired to in roduce into the preamble, was neither desirable nor necessary. As it stood, the second paragraph of the preamble referred very briefly to the conclusions of the Royal Commission; but in the operative part of the Bill, in Clause 1, Sub-section 1, the phrase "adequate provision" was expressly inserted as a direction to the Commissioners. In those circumstances he had to ask the House to resist the Amendments.
  On Question. Amendments negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  THE EARL OF CAMPEKDOWNasked the Secretary for Scotland a question as to the procedure before the Commission. He concluded that under Clause 5 it would be competent for the Commissioners to allow counsel to appear before them, but he would like to hear from the noble Marquess whether, having regard to the important circumstances, it might not be desirable to make it imperative on them to hear counsel if the parties so desired.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOWsaid he had considerable sympathy with the question which the noble Earl had asked. It would, of course, be quite competent for the Commissioners to decide to hear parties by counsel, but he did not think it would be desirable to put an imperative order to that effect in the Bill. They had selected Commissioners in whom, he believed, the country had the greatest confidence, and they had desired to avoid, as much as possible, tying their hands.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that demands are constantly made on borough councils to provide employment to able-bodied men, and that such demands are constantly granted at the expense of the rates, and without regard to the provision made and the conditions required by the Poor Law, the Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the Poor Laws of the country, the law bearing on the administration of relief, the administration of poor relief, and the constitution and efficiency of the bodies engaged in that administration, and, taking due account of the circumstances of the present time, including the number, conditions, and administration of voluntary and endowed charities, to report what amendments, if any, should be made in the laws and in the system and administration of public and voluntary relief.
  The noble Earl said:—My Lords, I desire at the outset to express my pleasure that His Majesty's Government have seen it to be right and proper to appoint such a Commission as is referred to in my Question. The wording of the Question is not my own. It is the wording of those who are more competent than I am to consider the questions dealt with. The Charity Organisation Society and other bodies have met and talked the whole thing over, and the notice was sent to me in the form of a Question for me to ask with the full approval of all those who are interested in, and have taken great pains to study, questions of Poor Law.
  As regards the question of the unemployed you have plenty of object-lessons. You have the object-lesson which was afforded by the lax administration of our Poor Law in England seventy years ago. Again, to take a case abroad, there was the result of State action in France in 1848, as shown by the failure of the Ateliers Nationaux, or public workshops, established by Monsieur Louis Blanc in that year. The establishment of those workshops produced the following results—the stoppage of private trade, the demoralisation of workmen, impending bankruptcy of the Government, and the forced

  241
  abandonment of the national workshops. On February 28th, 8,000 men were supposed to be out of work; March 15th, 14,000 employed; March 20th, work for 12,000 found (half - time); March 22nd, cost 50,000 francs per diem; April 1st, 40,000 men employed; April 16th, 66,000 employed, cost, 94,500 francs daily; May 25th, 87,000 men employed; June 20th, 115,000 men employed; credit of 3,000,000 francs voted by Chambers, with more to follow. June 28th, national workshops closed. This followed by insurrection; Cavagnac Dictator; 12,000 workmen killed in the streets of Paris. That is what occurred in France in the year 1848, and I would specially call your Lordships' attention to these wise words spoken at that time by Monsieur Lamartine. He said—
  "To decree the right of each individual to all manner of work was to decree the absorption or confiscation of capital by taxation (rates) and its destruction, which was equivalent to the absolute annihilation of labour. He did not suppose there was in the assembly any one so wild as to preach the abolition of capital to multiply work—in other words, the drying up of the spring in order to increase the How of water."
  My Lords, I hope the Government and your Lordships will take these wise words well to heart. I think all who have the welfare of the poor at heart ought to be grateful to the Government for their action in consenting to the appointment of a Commission. As everything depends upon the constitution of the Commission, I hope the Government will keep off it all what I would call "goody-goodies," no matter in which House they may sit.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has long desired that an inquiry should be held into the working of the Poor Law, and it is, therefore, particularly satisfactory to me to be able to refer him to the announcement lately made by the Prime Minister that such an inquiry is to take place. It will be a full inquiry, and I am justified in saying that it will cover the whole field of the Question which the noble Earl has put on the Paper. That being so, I do not think that I am called upon to take notice of
  242
  the observations which he made in asking the Question. I am not yet able to tell the noble Earl how the Commission will be constituted, or whether that particular class to which he takes exception will be excluded from it, but that it will be a full and adequate inquiry I have no doubt whatever.

  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state in a few words its object. In order to facilitate the admission of colonially trained and registered medical men to practise in Great Britain and hold appointments in the Imperial service, the Act of 1886 provided for reciprocity between the mother country and such of the self-governing Colonies as might comply with certain conditions, but that Act expressly stipulates that when any colony had a provincial and a federal organisation such reciprocal arrangements should be entered into with the federal Government and not the provincial. In the case of Canada the British North America Act of 1867, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, expressly provides that education shall be entirely under the control of the provincial and not the federal Governments, so that it is impossible to bring the Act of 1886 into force with Canada. It is impracticable to amend the British North America Act of 1867, and to transfer the control of education to the federal authorities, and therefore it is the object of this Bill to amend the Medical Act of 1886 without in any way interfering with the principle, and to enable reciprocal arrangements to be entered into either with the federal or provincial Governments.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): I have to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they have no intention of opposing the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  First Report of the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, at quarter past Four o'clock.