Sitting of 30 August 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dunoon Burgh Bill [Lords] (by Order),— Third Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Buckie Burgh and Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Aldershot Manmanœuvres.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the drenched condition of the men engaged in some recent manœuvre. at Aldershot; and whether he will consider the possibility of supplying the troops with a suitable light waterproof overcoat or cloak, which would be folded into a small compass without adding any considerable bulk or weight to the usual equipment, while adding greatly to the health and comfort of the men?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): As regards the first part of the question no
  2
  reports to this effect have reached the War Office. As regards the latter part of the question it is considered that the additional weight of the waterproof article suggested would make the weight that the soldier has to carry excessive.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it possible that such a cover might be served out upon certain special occasions at least; the hon. Gentleman only requires to see the condition of some of the men to see that it is necessary?
  Mr. ACLAND: The men have greatcoats. Waterproofs served out on special occasions would deteriorate very rapidly.
  Captain CRAIG: Do the soldiers object to carry waterproofs?
  Mr. ACLAND: Waterproofs to be of any real use would be too heavy. The men already carry more than 58 lbs.
  Mr. J. WARD: Would the hon. Gentleman ask for a report from the authorities at Aldershot with reference to the subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will consider that.

  Territorial Force (Supply of Mekometers).
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue an adequate supply of mekometers to the Territorial Force, one only having so far been supplied to each regiment and battalion?
  Mr. ACLAND: Mekometers will be supplied to the Territorial Force as soon

  3
  as they are released from the Regular Forces by the issue of new instruments to the latter. It is not possible, at present, to say when the supply will be completed.

  Kowloon Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would give a brief abstract of the figures of the chief resident engineer of the Kowloon Railway, showing how it is alleged that that railway can ever pay working expenses, interest, and repay the principal spent on its construction, even as an extension of the Canton Railway, in competition with the shorter navigable river which has cost nothing; and whether he has any corroboration of those figures from any competent person not dependent on the Crown Agents?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I understand that the Chief Resident Engineer is now preparing a revised estimate of profits, and, in the circumstances, it would be useless to give an abstract of the figures supplied some years ago. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the direct profit to be obtained is not the only matter to be considered. What is far more important is the indirect profit which will accrue to the Colony owing to the improvement of the facilities for trade with the interior of China.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he will submit to this House, or make available to Members, the speeches addressed by His Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong to the Legislative Assembly of that Colony, on the 6th February and 13th May, 1909, acknowledging that the Kowloon Railway was being constructed under the Crown Agents with money advanced by them on the security of the funds of the Colony; and if he is aware that this project, which has already cost more than twice the sum for which it could be completed, is being continued in this manner without the free consent of the Government and Colony of Hong Kong?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not proposed to lay any papers on the subject. In saying that the line has cost more than twice the sum for which it could be completed, the hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to the increase in
  4
  cost over the original estimate. That estimate, however, was very rough, and was never intended to be exact. It was based on a preliminary survey and included no calculation of quantities. It did not provide for rolling stock, workshops, and other important items. The line is being constructed with the full consent of the Colonial Government.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that it is being constructed by money advanced by the Crown Agents, and under their control?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; it cannot be said to be under their control.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it not being constructed by money advanced by the Crown Agents?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not quite certain about that; if it be so, I do not know that it makes any difference.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Governor has stated that it is so.

  Johore Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statement made at the opening of the Johore Railway that it would be long before night trains could be run over the swamps owing to the imperfect construction of the line in those parts, notwithstanding that its construction departmentally has cost £792,000 more than the sum for which the Sultan and Government of Johore could have got an efficient line constructed; and will he give the House the reason for permitting such waste?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not aware that any such statement has been made officially. As I stated on the 20th of July, no comparison is possible between the line as now constructed and the light line for which an estimate of £608,000 was made eighteen years ago.

  Domestic Brewers.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many houses there are in England and Wales of the annual value of £ 8 where beer is brewed for domestic use?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): This information is not available. The occupier of

  5
  a house not exceeding £8 in annual value who brews beer solely for his own domestic use does not require a licence to brew, and consequently there are no Revenue statistics on the subject.

  Victory Place Schools, Walworth.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a memorandum from the managers of the Victory Place Schools, Walworth, stating that the schools are so badly lit as to cause injury to the children's eyesight, that the sanitary arrangements are insufficient, that they are inefficiently equipped in case of fire, and showing that these complaints are supported by His Majesty's inspectors; whether the memorandum draws his attention to the delay on the part of the late School Board and the London County Council in remedying these defects; and whether the Education Department proposes to compel the education authority to take immediate action regarding this school?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman.): I have received a memorandum from the managers of this school, which includes the criticisms to which the hon. Member refers. The condition of the premises has been adversely reported upon by His Majesty's inspector, and the Board have already been in communication with the London County Council on the subject. The managers' memorandum will now be referred to the Council for their observations.

  Physical Training in Schools (Memorandum).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education whether and when the Memorandum on Physical Training in Schools, which has apparently been supplied to newspapers, will be laid upon the Table of the House, and will be available to Members of the House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is proposed to issue this Memorandum as a Stationery Office publication, and not as a Parliamentary Paper. Owing to difficulties in connection with the printing, the supply of copies will not be available for public use until about the third week in September. A small number of advance copies were secured for the use of students and teachers at the Summer Course of Instruction which is now proceeding, and copies were supplied to the public Press in order to obviate the
  6
  possibility of some newspapers, and not others, obtaining the Memorandum from individuals attending the Course of Instruction. If the hon. Member desires to have a copy I should be glad to send him one.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Will it really take three weeks to have the Memorandum circulated to Members of this House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not state that on my own authority. I am only giving the information that has been given to me. The printers tell me that they cannot have it circulated before the third week in September. At least 20,000 copies will have to be printed.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Could not 670 copies of the Memorandum be printed for the use of the Members of this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the resources of the printers are equal to that?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already made inquiry. The Stationery Office tell me that it will be extremely inconvenient to strike off a small number of copies.
  Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether it is not customary that such matters should come before the House in the first place, and before publication?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has not been done, as on the present occasion, on many occasions. This is not published as a Parliamentary Paper.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give advance copies to any Member of the House who asks for them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly, I shall be glad to; but hon. Members will quite realise the edition is in an imperfect state. and is subject to corrections in proof.

  Hankow-Canton Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has authorised the Government of Hong Kong to advance to the Chinese Government £1,100,000 to repurchase from an American-Belgian combination the concession for building the Hankow-Canton Railway for the purpose of preserving from foreign control a railway of which the southern terminus was to be at Canton; whether Chang Chi-tung, in

  7
  return, gave the British Government on 9th September, 1905, an undertaking that British capital and materials should have the preference whenever China decided to construct the line; and whether Germans have since succeeded in securing for themselves the contract for building and financing the railway; and, if so, whether any, and, if so, what, steps were taken by the British Government to secure the performance of the undertaking given by Chang Chi-tung and the interests in respect of which the advance of £1,100,000 was made?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. T. McKinnon Wood): The reply to the first point in the question is in the affirmative. It is true that Chang Chi-tung gave an undertaking that British capital and materials should have the preference whenever China decided to construct the line, but only if the terms offered by foreign financiers were not more favourable. A German group offered China in the spring of the present year terms which the Chinese considered more advantageous, and which they consequently accepted. It was to recover at any rate some portion of the Hankow-Canton Railway loan that the British and French groups, who were working together, decided to admit the German group to participation in the Hankow-Szechuan line, each group having an equal share in the loan and the material, but the British group supplying the chief engineer on the Hankow-Canton line and the chief engineer for one-third of the Hankow-Szechuan line. To safeguard the control of the loan funds by the lenders certain modifications were effected in the terms originally offered by the German group. Subsequently an American group expressed a wish to participate in the Hankow-Szechuan loan, and the negotiations with regard to the share to be allotted to this fourth group are still proceeding.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that the Chinese Government did, in fact, break the undertaking previously given?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to say that, because undoubtedly the terms offered to them by the German group were more favourable to the Chinese Government than the British were prepared to offer.

  Moroccan Prisoners of War.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government proposes to take any further action with a view to preventing the gross cruelties practised by order of the Sultan of Morrocco upon prisoners of war?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Consul at Fez has been instructed to associate himself with the action taken by his French colleague in protesting against mutilation and torture. A further protest by the whole diplomatic body at Tangier is under consideration.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is that the first protest?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Well, the first protest has only recently been made.

  Education Vote (Special Grants).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education what special grants have been made under Sub-head C 6 and Sub-head C 7 of the Education Vote during the present financial year, and to what local authorities have such special grants been made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will send the hon. Member a list of the grants paid under Sub-head C 6. Grants under Sub-head C 7 are not paid until towards the close of the financial year.

  Old Road School, Llanelly.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. W. Thorne)asked the President of the Board of Education if he was aware that, in consequence of the dispute between the Carmarthenshire County Council and the Llanelly Urban District Council, Llanelly children have been away from school for five months; and if he can see his way clear to insist on the children going back to the Old Road School, Llanelly, until the quarrel between the two local authorities has been settled?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the settlement of this unfortunate dispute. But I do not think I should be justified in directing the Urban District Council for Llanelly to admit children whose parents are resident outside their area unless the Carmarthenshire County Council are willing to make a contribution under Section 52 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, towards the cost of educating them.

  Midland Great Western Railway (Goods Siding, Longford).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a number of traders living in North Longford are subjected to inconvenience in not having a goods siding at Drumhownagh Station on the Midland Great Western Railway system; and will he call the attention of the directors of that system to this admitted inconvenience, and ask them to remedy it by providing a goods siding and loading bank there?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I have communicated with the railway company, and have received a reply, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
  Mr. FARRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the railway company do not see their way to make the siding, he can put any machinery in motion to enable these proceedings to be brought before the Railway Commission?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question, but I think the hon. Gentleman had better read the answer of the railway company and frame another question upon it.
  Mr. FARRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the answer of the railway company is yes or no?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not seen it.

  Labour Exchanges (Staff Appointments).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. W. Thorne)asked whether, in the appointment of any of the officials in connection with the labour exchanges, any age limit will be fixed in making the selections; and if any ex-Transvaal official's claim would be considered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not so far contemplated fixing any hard and fast age limit of general application, but naturally age will be taken into account in making the selections. I do not wish to exclude from consideration the claims of any class of qualified applicants.

  Old Age Pensions (Committee Clerks' Fees).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the clerks of sub-committees under the Old Age Pensions Act in the county of Galway have yet been paid their fees for the quarters ended
  10
  the 31st March, 1909, and 30th June, 1909; whether the accounts rendered by them have been found in comparison with the numbers furnished by the pension officers to be correct; and, if so, will he state why they have not been paid up to the present?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Subject to the reservation of one or two items which are still under inquiry, the accounts for the March quarter have now been paid. The account for the June quarter was not received by the Treasury until the 10th instant, and the charges for claims and questions contained therein do not agree with the pension officers' returns. The discrepancies are under investigation, but in the meantime payments on account are being made to the clerk of the committee and to the clerks of the various subcommittees. The delay which has occurred in connection with the accounts for the March quarter has been due partly to the fact that the numbers of claims and questions charged for in the various sub-accounts did not agree with the officers' returns, and partly to complications arising through claims arising in the district served by one of the sub-committees having been dealt with by another sub-committee.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same grievance obtains in Cork, where people have not yet been paid who should have been paid on 31st March?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In a great number of counties it is unfortunately the case that the accounts have been rendered late, and when rendered late have not been accompanied by similar accounts rendered by the pensions officers, by which it might be seen whether they tallied. It is a reasonable delay.
  Mr. DUFFY: Where they have tallied what is the cause of the delay?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Where they have tallied, so far as I know, there has been no delay.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts (Costs of Administration).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that the costs of making title to plots acquired by rural district councils, under the Labourers Acts, are wholly disproportionate to the value of the lands so acquired, and that the Local Registration of Title Acts, instead of reducing the costs, has increased them, particularly in cases where

  11
  the purchasing tenant who had neglected to discharge the equities is dead and legal personal representation has not been raised; and will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation which will relieve local authorities in Ireland from liability to pay the entire cost of making titles to holdings, portions of which have been acquired by them, and will throw upon the council the liability for a part of the legal expenses proportionate to the value of the portion of the holding so acquired?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. R. R. Cherry): I am aware that in occasional cases of the nature referred to by the hon. Member the costs of making title to plots under the Labourers Acts are somewhat out of proportion to the value of the plots to be acquired. With regard to the second part of the question, I may point out that under Sections 21 and 22 of the Labourers Act, 1906, the registration is made free from rights and equities, and no registration fees are charged. In the case of a purchasing tenant who has died and neglected to discharge the equities, the difficulty is that unless representation is taken out to his estate, there would be no one capable of giving the statutory receipt or other instrument transferring the lands. Of course, if default is made in taking out representation, the Rural District Council can lodge the amount of the compensation in court in accordance with Section 11 (8) of the Labourers Act, 1906, and the costs of taking out representation of the estate would then be a matter within the discretion of the court. The course suggested in the last part of the question is one which, I fear, would be attended with many difficulties. When the Labourers Act of 1906 was before the House, the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Bryce, did all in his power to introduce provisions for the purpose of lessening the cost of showing title, and I fear it would be impossible to do more by legislation than has been done by that Act. The hon. Member must bear in mind that in most cases the cost of proving title to a portion of a farm, however small, is exactly the same as for the whole farm.
  Mr. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case he referred to it will deprive the labourers of getting cottages?
  Mr. CHERRY: I do not think it does deprive them of getting cottages, but the
  12
  way to avoid that would be for the guardians to take plots for people whose title-is simple.
  Mr. J. C. LARDNER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an unreasonable: thing that in a case where the representation is to be raised, say, on a £5,000 estate, the costs should be thrown upon the local body for acquiring a plot worth £10.
  Mr. CHERRY: Yes; but I pointed out in my answer there is a course open to the guardians of lodging the money in court, and in this case the cost of the representation would be at the discretion of the court.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any single property in Ireland where the title is simple?
  Mr. CHERRY: Oh, yes, Sir.

  National Telephone Company (Employéshankar at Stoke-on-Trent).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of numbers of the established employés of the National Telephone Company in the Stoke-on-Trent district, on the ground that the company's undertaking is about to be transferred to the Post Office; and whether he can say how he intends to work the system acquired if the experienced men now working for the company are dismissed prior to such transference, or does he propose to re-engage the dismissed servants of the company for that purpose?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The numbers of the construction staff of the National Telephone Company are constantly fluctuating. I am informed by the National Telephone Company that since the beginning of this year they have discharged eight men and one boy from their construction staff in the Potteries District owing to slackness of work. There appears to be at the present time a considerably reduced demand for the extension of the telephone system, due partly to the fact that the telephone system has made very rapid extensions of late years, and that there is therefore not the same opening for new construction; and, further, that the state of trade has of late seriously affected the demand for new telephone installations. As regards the Post Office system, there is also, for the time being, less work in connection with renewals, as the old plant has of late been largely superseded by new and more

  13
  permanent plant. As regards the Trunk lines also during the last few years lines have been added in anticipation of traffic, and there is at the present moment less opportunity of extending them. There is thus, just at present, both on the part of the National Telephone Company (so I am informed by them), as well as on the part of the Post Office, a somewhat diminished demand for construction work. This being so, it is not possible, unfortunately, to undertake to engage men discharged by the National Telephone Company on Post Office work, but we do so as far as possible. I am glad to say, however, that, as already stated in the House, I have come to an arrangement with the National Telephone Company in regard to certain construction work, and am also in communication with them in regard to a proposed arrangement to enable them to continue to open new exchanges in their areas, in order that the work of construction shall be continued without interruption between now and 1911.

  Bundoran Postal Service.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters which reached Bundoran at 9.15 a.m. were not delivered in that town on 21st August till 11.45 a.m., owing to the want of a proper staff; and whether, having regard to the fact that undue delay in the delivery of letters in this town after the arrival of the morning mail is of frequent occurrence, immediate steps will be taken to remedy a system attended with inconvenience to the people of the locality?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will inquire into the matter.

  "New Age" Newspaper (Indian Affairs).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been called to an article in the "New Age" newspaper for 26th August in which the murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie is partially condoned, and in which an Indian Lieutenant-Governor is accused of deliberately carrying out an illegal execution; and if he proposes to take any proceedings in the case?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): I have seen the article, and I do not propose to take any proceedings.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the article suggested that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal carried out an illegal execution?
  Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think the suggestion is as explicit as the Noble Lord puts it.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in want of an amateur Crown prosecutor?

  Black Scab.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the disease of black scab in potatoes extensively prevails in certain districts of England; and whether, in view of the fact that potatoes in considerable quantities for seed and other purposes are imported from England to Ireland, he will take steps, by prohibiting such importation or otherwise, as he thinks fit, to prevent the introduction of this disease into Ireland?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department are aware that the disease in potatoes known as black scab exists in certain districts in England, and they are fully alive to the necessity of preventing the introduction of this disease into Ireland. The Black Scab in Potatoes (Ireland) Order, 1908, made by the Department in pursuance of the powers conferred on them by the Diseases of Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, prohibits the landing in Ireland of any potatoes affected, or suspected of being affected, with black scab.
  Mr. BEVILLE STANIER: Are there any cases reported in Ireland of this black scab?
  Mr. RUSSELL: None.
  Mr. JOHN MOONEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that a Provisional Order was issued, and came into operation yesterday by the Jersey States Department of Agriculture, prohibiting the importation of potatoes into the Channel Islands from the United Kingdom owing to black scab, and whether, as black scab is not prevalent in Ireland, he will make representations to have Ireland exempted from that Order?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am aware of this Order having been issued, and I am disposed to take the same steps as the Department took in regard to Malta last year when they issued Orders in reference to black scab.

  FINANCE BILL.

    PETROL DUTY.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the forms are now being issued for the return of the Petrol Duty; if he is aware that, on the forms being duly filled up and the amount of petrol not liable to duty being agreed, the amount of the duty to be returned is admitted, but the officers state that the repayment cannot be made until the Finance Bill is law; and will he explain why the money is retained by the Government, seeing that whether the Finance Bill becomes law or not the money is, in any event, repayable?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): Forms are being issued by the Board of Customs and Excise to all persons who desire to claim return of the duty on motor spirit. This is being done to meet the convenience of the public and of the Department, so that repayments can be speedily made when the Finance Bill becomes law. At present the Department has no authority to make any repayment.
    Mr. FELL: The right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation in regard to repayment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Resolution of the House of Commons which authorises collection does not authorise repayment, and therefore it must wait until the Finance Bill becomes law.

    ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES (AVERAGE CHARGES).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return showing the average charges for royalties or way leaves in each of the following counties: Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Stafford, Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Warwickshire?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, and my right hon. Friend is therefore unable to grant the Return.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether royalties and way leaves payable for the getting of chalk will be subject to the tax on minerals provided in the Budget?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir.

    INCOME TAX ON LAND.
    Mr. COCHRANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement to the House as to the particulars of the suggested changes necessary to remove the Income Tax on land from Schedule A to Schedule D?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend on the 17th instant to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.

    DEATH DUTIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to change the Death Duty of 50s. now payable on an estate where the gross value does not exceed £500, or the duty of 30s. now payable on an estate where the gross value does not exceed £300; whether he will state the total amount received in Death Duties from Ireland last year on estates under £500 net; and what will be the increase under the new scale?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not proposed to alter the law under which fixed duties of 50s. and 30s. can be paid where the estate does not exceed £500 or £300 (gross) respectively. The total amount received in Death Duties from Ireland in the year 1908–9 on estates not over £500 (net) was £9,306. There is no new scale proposed for estates of this size.

    LICENSED DUTY (HOUSES ACQUIRED BY LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amount of Licence Duty which was paid on the 141 licensed houses acquired by the London County Council between March, 1889, and February, 1907, and what the total amount would be under the proposed scale in the Finance Bill, and what percentage would the increase of Licence Duty represent on the compensation of £344,550 paid to the owners; whether the compensation so paid represented, in addition to the value of the licence, the goodwill of the business created by the owner; and whether, after the passing of this Bill, when public authorities or other bodies seek to acquire the sites of licensed houses for public or progressive purposes, the Government will demand compensation for loss of revenue to which the State will be entitled under the Finance Bill when passed into law?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As regards the first four parts of this question, my right hon. Friend regrets that he has no information. As regards the last part, he is afraid that he does not see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement said he had an account before him of the compensation paid in these cases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. The Budget statement was rather a long one, and I cannot carry all these matters in my head.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will the estimated increase of Licence Duty, proposed by the Finance Bill, amount to in the administrative County of London calculated on half the annual value: what ratio will the estimated increase be to the total increases on Licence Duties in Great Britain; and whether he will state how much per head of the population the increase will amount to in the London area?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I assume that the hon. Member refers to publicans' licences. Any estimate of the increased yield from this Licence Duty in London on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would, I think, be misleading, as it is not proposed in the Finance Bill that the duty on all such licences should be assessed at half the annual value of the premises. Under paragraph 3 of the "Provisions applicable to retailers' on-licences," on page 53 of the Bill (as to which my right hon. Friend has placed some Amendments on the Notice Paper), the licence-holder has, in certain cases, the option of the alternative method of assessment explained in Sub-clause (2) of Clause 30, and it is not possible at present to say what the Licence Duty under this alternative will be.
    Mr. P. WHITE: I think that only refers to houses valued at over £500.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I do not follow that. If there is any substance in it, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question, and then I shall be glad to answer it.

    INCOME TAX (ABATEMENT CLAIMS).
    Mr. COCHRANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a letter, Reference No. Kir. 196, was addressed to a gentleman residing in Ayr-
    18
    shire asking him for information regarding a visitor staying in his house who had claimed Income Tax abatement, and enclosing him all the papers connected with the claim, with full particulars of income from every source; whether the Inland Revenue authorities are in the habit of making public information submitted to them in confidence; and whether he will take steps to prevent such a breach of confidence in the future?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will furnish my right hon. Friend with more detailed particulars of the case which he has in mind, he will be happy to make inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. COCHRANE: Is it not a fact that this kind of thing is constantly occurring?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it is quite an unusual procedure; as far as I know nothing of the sort has ever come under my notice before.

    Government Departments (Estimates).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what has been the annual increase in the Estimates of each Government Department since 1875; and whether he could generally state the causes for these increases?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member will find the figures he requires succinctly set out in the analytical tables which precede the printed Estimates for each year, the causes of the respective increases being briefly described in the memoranda which accompany them. It would not be possible to give the figures in detail or to attempt any general description of the various causes which have contributed to the increases under the several Votes within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question.

    Local Education Committees (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the case of a dispute between members of a local education committee and an inquiry being called for, the question will be inquired into by an inspector of the Education Department or the Local Government Board?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): There is no provision in the Irish Education Act, 1892, or in the Rules made there under for the inquiry by

    19
    the Commissioners of National Education, the Local Government Board, or any other authority into disputes between members of a school attendance committee.

    Charge of Assault against Constable (Longford).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Sunday night, 15th August, Police Constable Begley, stationed at Longford, violently and without cause assaulted Joseph Daly when walking past him in the public street; whether, when proceeding to the barracks to complain of the assault, Begley again met Daly and struck him a violent blow in the face; whether the local magistrate has declined to issue a summons against this policeman; and, if so, will he direct the local resident magistrate to do so?
    Mr. CHERRY: As I am informed, the facts as to this alleged assault are as follows: About 11.45 p.m. on the 15th instant, Constable Begley, who was on leave and in plain clothes, was standing at the door of a friend's house speaking to a girl friend, when Daly and two companions approached. Daly stopped and looked into the constable's face. The constable told him to go away, but, instead of doing so, he called back his two companions and lighted matches, which he held up in an extremely rude manner in the face of the constable and his friend. Naturally annoyed, the constable pushed him away, and the assault, if any, was a very trivial one. There is no foundation for the statement that the constable met Daly a second time and struck him. An application was made to the petty sessions on the 18th instant for a summons, but the four magistrates present unanimously refused to order its issue. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has no power to order them to issue one, even if he were disposed to take that course?
    Mr. FARRELL: Is it not a fact that the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given is practically Constable Begley's version of the story?
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not know. I have got this reply from my ordinary channels of information, namely, the district inspector.
    Mr. FARRELL: Why should there not be an opportunity given for a further investigation into the facts?
    Mr. CHERRY: My hon. Friend must be aware that Joseph Daly can bring a civil action if he pleases. The Government has no control in the matter, and they cannot compel a magistrate to issue a summons.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: In the event of proceedings being taken by the aggrieved person, will the police be defended by the right hon. Gentleman or anyone representing him?
    Mr. CHERRY: Certainly not.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this police officer in court made an appeal to the solicitor who applied for the summons not to go on with it?
    Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir, I was not aware of that fact.

    Mr. P. G. Mahony's Estate, Cordal, Kerry.
    Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked whether the Estates Commissioners sent an inspector to the lands of Mr. Richard J. Walsh, on the estate of Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony, at Cordal, county Kerry, immediately before the recent eviction of Mr. Walsh; whether the inspector made a valuation of the lands; whether the same was communicated to and refused by the landlord; and whether such valuation showed that the price demanded by Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony was excessive?
    Mr. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 21st June last.
    Mr. MURPHY: I never asked a question of this kind before. I want to know whether it is not a fact that the Estates Commissioners' valuer went over this land and declared the rent asked by Mr. Mahony to be excessive? That is a very simple question.
    Mr. CHERRY: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I believe he put a similar question down on 21st June.

    Reinstatement Application, Coachford, Cork.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether the estate of Thomas Miller, a minor, situate at Clontead, Coachford, county Cork, has come under the notice of the Estates Commissioners; have any agreements for a sale been filed with

    21
    them; whether it is now sought to create a tenancy in favour of one Daniel Halloran, a caretaker of a farm on this estate from which Jeremiah O'Mahony was evicted for non-payment of rent in June, 1883; have the Estates Commissioners power under any existing Act, or is it proposed to invest them with power under the present Land Bill to exclude tenancies of this kind, created for the purposes of a sale and with the object of excluding the claims of the evicted tenants from the general sale; and, if not, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the position of evicted tenants whose holdings are at present occupied by caretakers who may at any moment be converted into bogus tenants?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners cannot identify any estate of Thomas Miller, a minor, as pending for sale before them. The Commissioners have inquired into and considered Jeremiah Mahony's application for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him, and have decided to take no action in the matter.

    Blind Persons, Ireland.
    Captain CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state the number of blind persons in Ireland in the workhouses and other institutions respectively, and the nature of their employment, if any?
    Mr. CHERRY: According to the Census of 1901, the number of totally blind in Ireland was 4,253, of whom 766 were in workhouses and 361 in other institutions. Table 105 of the General Report of the Census Commissioners, which has been presented to Parliament, gives the occupations of the totally blind. The nature of the employment of those in workhouses and other institutions are not shown separately.

    Afflicted Children (Ireland) Bill.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Afflicted Children (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, on what date?
    Mr. CHERRY: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Belfast on 26th October last to the effect that he would be very glad to introduce
    22
    a Bill on the subject if he had any assurance that it would meet with general approval. It is obvious that no such legislation can be introduced this Session.
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is very much wanted in Ireland, and that it is approved of on all hands?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am well aware of that fact, and I deeply regret that it is impossible to make it a non-contentious measure.

    Untenanted Lands (Vereker Estate, Limerick).
    Mr. P. J. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the untenanted lands on the Vereker estate, situate near Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick; if so, whether they have yet apportioned them, and to whom; and whether they have given the labourers of the district any portion of the lands?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have allotted the 81 acres of untenanted land on this estate among five of the tenants on the estate.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the claims of the labourers in the district were considered in allotting this land, and whether it is a fact that the Estates Commissioners have given a large portion of it to a farmer who already holds 70 acres?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am afraid I cannot answer either of those two questions. The hon. Member had better put them down upon the Paper.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he can state, approximately or otherwise, the number of occupiers of houses which have been medically condemned as unfit for human habitation under the Labourers Acts, who have had their representations for cottages and allotments thrown out by rural district councils in the first instance or rejected by the inspectors of the Local Government Board in the second?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Local Government Board have no returns giving the desired information, which could not be obtained without an examination of the records of every rural district in Ireland.

    Evicted Tenants Claim (John Shea, Millstreet, Cork).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners received in February, 1904, a statement of claim from an evicted tenant named John Shea, formerly of Carrigculteen, Mill-street, county Cork, and now of Brockton, Mass., U.S.A.; were the circumstances under which this eviction took place investigated by the Commissioners, and was it found to be due to the non-payment of rent of £60 a year; and, if the claimant returns to Ireland to prosecute his claim, will his evidence be taken by an inspector of the Land Commission before any final decision be come to in his case?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into and considered the application of Catherine Shea for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by her husband, and have decided to take no action in the case.

    Pott's Estate, Moore, County Roscommon (Seizures for Rent).
    Mr. J. P. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether a large force of police recently accompanied the sheriff's bailiff to make seizures on the Potts property at Moore, county Roscommon; whether the police were present for any other purpose than for the preservation of the peace; whether he is aware that the acting sergeant of the Cloonfad barracks carried a whip and actually acted as cattle drover; and whether he will state if it is a portion of the police duty to act in this manner?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that on the 23rd instant a force of 20 police accompanied the sheriff and his assistants when making seizures for rent on the Potts estate. This force was subsequently augmented by 15 men from Ballinasloe. The police were present solely for the protection of the sheriff, and confined themselves exclusively to that duty. The acting-sergeant referred to took a whip from a man who was about to strike one of the sheriff's assistants and brought it back to the barracks with him. He did not use the whip or drive cattle with it.

    Lands of Willsgrove, County Roscommon.
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the lands of Willsgrove, in the county of Roscom-
    24
    mon, which have been in the possession of the Congested Districts Board for the past three years, are now about to be divided without reference to the needs of the occupiers of uneconomic buildings in the locality, in the face of an understanding which existed that no scheme for the distribution of these lands would be carried out until the passage of the Land Bill into law, in order that the increased powers of the Congested Districts Board should be used for the benefit of small occupiers in the district; and whether the Congested Districts Board will suspend this scheme until these powers will enable them to carry out a distribution equitable to the people of the district?
    Mr. CHERRY: The hon. Members appears to have been misinformed. The lands of Willsgrove are not being divided by the Congested Districts Board without reference to the needs of uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood. On the contrary, the Board are awaiting the passage into law of the Bill now before the House for the purpose of extending their powers, and in anticipation of obtaining such powers all holdings under £10 rateable value adjacent to the lands acquired have been mapped and land for their enlargement has been reserved.

    Protestant Workmen, Dromore, County Down.
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the complaint of Mr. John Graham, contractor, of Dromore, county Down, that when he was carrying out a contract at Roscommon he had to stand with revolver in hand to protect his Protestant workmen; whether any complaints were made to the police as to attempted boycotting or sectarian opposition to Mr. John Graham's workmen, whilst he was engaged in the county; and, if so, what action was taken by the police upon such complaints and with what results?
    Mr. CHERRY: My attention has been called to a newspaper report of a speech made by Mr. Graham to the effect stated in the question, but I cannot of course vouch for the accuracy of the report. I am informed by the constabulary authorities that there is no truth in the statement that Mr. Graham or any of his workmen were boycotted. Mr. Graham was employed as a contractor for the repair of the waterworks at Boyle about four years ago.

    25
    He had only in his employment, so far as the police are aware, two Protestant workmen, neither of whom were molested in any way. One of them got married, and settled down in Boyle, where I believe he is now living happily. No complaints whatsoever were made to the police of any attempt to boycott, or any sectarian opposition to, these men, and the police report that in their opinion the allegations about boycotting and intimidation are purely the results of a fertile imagination.
    Mr. D. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether a report of the speech of Mr. Graham, for which the right hon. Gentleman has told the House there is no foundation, was circulated in a pamphlet headed "Grievances from Ireland," by Lord Ashtown?
    Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir; I have not seen the pamphlet.
    Mr. LARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the local authority who employed Mr. Graham to carry out these works was a Nationalist authority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    National Revenue.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister if he will grant a Return showing the total estimate revenue, the total revenue received, the total net revenue available for services of the State after rebates, deductions, etc., and the actual cost of collection in each year, from 1875 to the present year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information which the hon. Member desires is contained in a readily available form in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for each year, and I do not think that the publication of specially arranged abstracts of figures, which are already available, serves any purpose of sufficient public utility to justify the labour and expense involved in their preparation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets, therefore, that he does not see his way to granting such a Return.

    Southend (Proposed Education Authority).
    Mr. E. H. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education whether a scheme for the formation of an education authority for the borough of Southend has been submitted to him; whether it con-
    26
    tains a proviso that no clergyman or minister of religion is to be co-opted as a member; and, if so, whether he will defer his approval of this proviso until public opinion in Southend has been tested in regard to it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The draft of a scheme containing the proviso referred to has been submitted to the Board. Before the Board's approval is given steps will be taken to give publicity to the provisions of the proposed scheme in accordance with Section 17 (6) of the Education Act, 1902, and any objections or suggestions which may be received will be duly considered.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. BILL.

  PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS.
  Order for Committee read.
  The following Notices of Instruction to the Committee stood upon the Order Paper:—
  Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD: To mover "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to provide for the complete dissociation of the compensation payable under the Town Planning Clauses of this Bill from the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert Clauses in the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill, providing for the separate valuation and assessment of all lands and of buildings acquired or erected in connection with any scheme carried out under the provisions of this Act, and for acquiring for the local authority all increments of value in lands which can be traced to improvements or schemes carried out under the provisions of this Act."
  Mr. G. N. BARNES and Mr. F. W. JOWETT: Instructions in like terms.
  Mr. A. FINDLAY: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to provide for compensation arising from damages from mineral workings, and that, on a local authority acquiring the surface, this shall carry as of right the property in the minerals beneath the surface."
  Mr. W. JOYNSON-HICKS: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Com-

  27
  mittee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill providing for the improvement of existing and construction of new through routes for traffic, and empowering the Local Government Board to prescribe a minimum width for through or arterial routes of traffic."
  Sir WALTER FOSTER: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to extend the scope of the Bill so as to make provisions with respect to the appointment and duties of borough and district medical officers of health."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts."
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: To move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that Part II. of the Bill shall not apply to Scotland."
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are a number of Instructions upon the Paper. The first, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), can be moved as an Amendment to the Bill. The next Instructions, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) are all mandatory, and therefore out of order. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Findlay), combines in itself two separate Instructions, and ought to be divided. They cannot be treated together as one question. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), is beyond the scope of the Bill. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, is also mandatory, and therefore out of order. I am afraid I cannot understand the object of the Instruction standing in the name of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for East Marylebone to divide the Bill into two parts, because the Bill is already divided into four parts. The next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire, is a mandatory Instruction, and therefore out of order. None of the Instructions being in order, I will now leave the Chair.
  Bill considered in Committee.—[First allotted day.]
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  PART I.—HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
  Facilities for Acquisition of Lands and other purposes of the Housing Acts.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Part III. of principal Act to take effect without adoption. 53 and 54 Viet, c. 70.)
  Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall, after the commencement of this Act, extend to and take effect in every urban or rural district, or other place for which it has not been adopted, as if it had been so adopted.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I rise to oppose Clause 1 for two reasons: First, because it casts doubt upon the capability of the local authority to decide what is good for the needs of the neighbourhood; and, secondly, because it gives arbitrary powers to the Local Government Board. It, in fact, makes the President of the Local Government Board a sort of Emperor, a kind of Julius Cæsar, who, of his own sweet will, is to direct the fortunes of his poorer and less fortunate fellow men. I shall certainly, for these two reasons, vote against the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I feel astonished such a proposal should come from right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, more especially, from the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. John Burns), because I can remember when the right hon. Gentleman and myself were new Members of this House, there was no Member on either side who was more strongly in favour of great powers being granted to the local authorities, or who held more strongly the view that the local authority was the fit and proper body to decide almost anything than the right hon. Gentleman. I fancy at one time in the political career of the right hon. Gentleman he thought the London County Council a far better authority than the House of Commons. Of late years he has changed his opinion, and he is now gradually coming round to the idea that the local authority is not fit to decide what it ought to do in its own district. If we allow this Clause to pass,

  29
  what will be the effect on the local authority? Part III. of the Act of 1890 applies, I believe, to rural sanitary authorities, which are now represented by the rural district councils. Surely a rural district council is a body which should have some knowledge of the needs of its own district. I am not altogether in love with the elective principle. I think it can be carried too far, and hon. Members below the Gangway who cheer that remark can not themselves be enamoured of the principle, and at the same time vote for this Clause, because it does away altogether with that principle. What is the use of electors in a rural district going to the poll, very often at considerable trouble to themselves, and electing rural district councillors, if their representatives are not to have the right to say what they believe to be good for the people of the district. It seems absurd altogether, and the sooner you abolish the rural district council and make the Department in Whitehall supreme the better. I can conceive no other alternative. I have a great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell me how he can possibly know the needs of every rural district in England and Wales; he surely cannot be so well acquainted with them as the chosen representatives of the people. Clause 10, which must be read in conjunction with this Clause, is very important and far-reaching. We will presume—as I am afraid will be the case—that I am not successful in my endeavour to strike out Clause 1, which, therefore, becomes part of the Bill that eventually passes into law. What will be the result? Take a given area where the district council has been elected after a considerable contest as to whether or not steps should be taken under this Clause. The ratepayers have decided that there is no need in that particular district for additional housing accommodation, and that the district is not in a sufficiently strong financial position to indulge in the luxury of building new houses. Under Clause 10, four people, who, while being householders, may not pay any rates at all—
  Mr. JOHN WARD: How can a person be a householder without paying rates?
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Member will go into the country he will find any number of people living in cottages, and possessing Parliamentary and local voting powers, who do not pay a farthing in rates. They pay for their cottages 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week, but the landlord pays the
  30
  rates to keep the cottages in repair; yet the occupier has the vote. Well, four such people, paying Is. a week rent, having a vote, but paying no rates, will have a right to demand an inquiry. Inquiries are exceedingly expensive, and the cost has to be paid by the ratepayers, and should the President of the Local Government Board come to the conclusion—although I venture to say no holder of that office will really be capable of knowing what are the real needs of the district— but should the President of the Local Government Board think the complaint well founded, he may order an expenditure of £50,000 or £100,000, and he may have houses erected in a rural district where there are no inhabitants except farm labourers, who cannot afford to pay more than 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week for cottages. Yet it may be the case that the houses erected cannot be let, except at a loss, for less than 6s. or 7s. per week, and the ratepayers will consequently have to pay for the fad of that particular President of the Local Government Board. If this Clause is adopted it really means the extinction of the local authorities as far as regards their work under this particular Section. They will have nothing whatever to do. They will not be able to say, in our opinion, as chosen representatives of the district, we believe such and such things ought to be done. They will be at the mercy of the Local Government Board moved by four people.
  Some ardent Socialist, desirous to benefit the people at somebody else's expense, may go down into a district and easily induce four people to demand this expensive inquiry, and eventually the unfortunate ratepayers will have to bear the brunt of the burden of this fad of the right hon. Gentleman. Has the right hon. Gentleman carefully considered what will be the effect of this fad? I presume I shall not have a chance of converting him, although I believe he is always open to reason. But possibly he may not have considered the effect of this Clause on his Bill. The omission of the Clause would not interfere with the other parts of the Bill, which could still be adopted all over the country by those who desire to adopt it, and that in my mind is the only safeguard for Bills of this sort. Still, I am afraid I have not been successful in convincing the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I appeal to the House generally, and especially to the Radical Members of this Committee, who have always been loud in their praise

  31
  of the elective principle, to support me in my endeavour to preserve to the elected of the people the power to choose to do what they think right for the benefit of those who have elected them.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think there is no doubt that this Clause goes very much further than it need, if the only object of it is to facilitate the adoption of Part III. by rural district councils. Of course, in the past, we all acknowledge that certain county councils have no doubt thrown obstacles in the way of rural district councils, putting up cottages under Part III., but that difficulty can be done away with by taking away the power of veto from the county council, and giving this same power of veto to the Local Government Board instead. If the right hon. Gentleman restricted himself to that Amendment of the law, I think the majority of us on this side of the House would have agreed with him, but of course this Clause goes a great deal further. Its real object is to pave the way for the Local Government Board, compelling every district, whether it is necessary or not, to go in for schemes of housing under Part III. They obviously cannot compel districts, unless they do away with the necessity of adopting Part III., because it would be a defence against the Local Government Board compelling them, that the authority could not act if Part III. had not been adopted, and until it was adopted any action would be ultra vires. Therefore the whole foundation of this Clause is to enable the Local Government Board to compel local authorities to adopt Part III. of the Act. Clause 10, I suppose, will not be discussed at all under this Resolution. It is very regrettable that it should not be discussed, because I think it is the most important part of the Bill from the housing point of view. Under that Clause small authorities will, with the assistance of the Local Government Board, be able to compel large authorities, large authorities will be able to compel small authorities, and four ratepayers will be able to compel any kind of authority. The Bill has been very justly criticised as a measure which is designed to set up the uncontrolled bureaucracy of the Local Government Board, and I think there is no greater instance of this defect than this proposal about the adoption of Part III. I believe that, quite apart from the administrative danger of centreing all
  32
  these powers in the Local Government Board, there is very great danger to the cause of housing. I think it is disastrous to transfer the responsibility for action of this kind from the local authorities to the Local Government Board. Even where the Local Government Board does not exercise these powers, it is perfectly certain that their power to do so must very much discourage housing. After all, the housing question cannot be solved by the local authority alone; however much money they devote to the purpose they can only touch the fringe of the question, and we must depend for the better housing of the people upon private enterprise controlled by the local authority. If this Clause passes and the superstructure passes, and the Local Government Board can compel the local authorities, they will put up houses, and be quite regardless of the heavy loss which will be thrown upon the rates.
  Hitherto local authorities have shown a great amount of common sense in this matter. They have realised that it does not pay in the long run to put up houses unless they can make both ends meet, but once the responsibility is taken off the shoulders of the local representatives, and they can go to the ratepayers and say: "It is not our fault that this heavy expenditure is cast upon the rates but the Local Government Board's fault," they will only be too ready to bribe certain portions of the electorate by providing these houses. Of course, the Local Authorities are handicapped in competing with private enterprise. Although they have cheap money, they have to pay back during the sinking fund period the whole cost of the buildings and the land; and, of course, they build in a very much more extravagant way than private enterprise, and they suffer from the general extravagance which you always find in municipal trading, when the managers do not suffer in their own pockets by insufficient attention to detail. When encouraged by the Local Government Board they are certain to pay rent out of rates. In the past, of course, the adoption of Part III. was confined to those parts where it was absolutely necessary, and where private enterprise did not supply the want, or where it was possible to put up buildings of this kind without loss, but now it will become the general rule to build, regardless of financial consequences, and this must inevitably discourage private builders, both in the country districts and in the towns. There are many country

  33
  districts where the owners of land put up houses at rents which do not pay reasonable interest on the cost of building. They certainly will not go on doing that in the future. They will not consent to pay twice over, and if they have to pay very heavy rates to provide unremunerative houses they will cease to build cottages of their own. In the same way in towns, it is inevitable that building will be checked. Rate-aided competition must prevent the builder from putting up houses to meet the local demand, and the eventual result will be that the local authority will have to do the whole work; because builders will be so alarmed that they will leave the provision of working class accommodation, where they may be undercut by the competition of the local authority, entirely to that body. I must say I think it is a very dangerous proceeding to start compulsion in these matters where the central authority does not make any grant.
  Compulsion has been limited hitherto to those services such as public health and education and poor law services, where the local authority gets help from the central authority. The ground on which the central authority has given this help has undoubtedly been, that these objects were national objects, and that the neglect of giving the service in the district might bring disastrous results, not only upon that district, but on a far larger section of the community. I think the demolition of slums, where the Local Government Board has had this compulsory power may be looked upon as a public health service and one in which the Local Government Board should have this power of compulsion. Part III. is on a different ground. It is not a sanitary service in any way; it is a matter which concerns the local authority alone, and it is quite arguable that in the majority of cases, much more will be done to encourage sanitary houses by the local authority encouraging private enterprise and controlling and instigating these enterprises than by driving them out of the field by rate-aided competition. There is no necessity for making Part III. universal because if the ratepayers want it adopted they can easily make their views known to the local authority, and get them to adopt it. The right form of building for the local authority seems to be that which does not tempt private enterprise. In London, for instance, private enterprise goes in for providing large tenements, where the site is not much larger than that of small tenements, and
  34
  where the amount of sanitary accommodation is much less. For these reasons it is much more profitable to put up large tenements. That is a typical case where Part III. has been adopted, and where very great service has been done by doing so; but it seems to me that local authorities are undoubtedly the best judges as to whether they can best encourage housing by building themselves or leaving ground for private enterprise; and it is because I believe that this Clause and the compulsion which will hinge upon it will really hinder the progress of sanitary housing of the working classes, that I shall certainly follow the hon. Baronet if he carries the matter to a Division.
  Sir FRANCIS POWELL: I think we have now reached a stage in the history of our public health legislation when the adoptive Act of 1890 ought not to be left to the discretion of the local authorities. The history of all of these statutes is that you have had an adoptive Act which has been largely taken up, and has had an operation in yearly extending areas. Then, after experience has shown their wisdom, the provisions have been made general by statutes for that purpose. That is really the drift of this Clause, and I myself, having a deep interest in the public health of our great towns, think the time has come when we should take another step in advance in this matter. It does not follow in any degree that we are to sanction the Act of 1890 in every particular. On the contrary, I think there are several provisions in the Bill before us which are capable of very great improvement and valuable Amendment. This Clause was brought before the Committee at their first sitting. There were 53 Members present, and after an Amendment was negatived, the Clause was carried by a unanimous vote. A decision so made is entitled to consideration in the House. This is really a large question affecting the health of large numbers of our people, and I feel sure in my own mind that to reject this Clause would be a retrograde step.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The admirable speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Powell) entirely disposes of the speech made by the preceding hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who was under the impression that this Clause had for its object the increase of the Cæsarean powers of the Local Government Board over local authorities, and he thought the time had arrived when some restriction should be

  35
  placed upon the grasping power of the Department that I represent. But, oddly enough, this Clause has the very opposite intention and effect. Its object is to allow the 671 rural district councils to which it applies to cut themselves free from the shackles and restraints of the county councils, and to put themselves, so far as the initiation of housing is concerned, outside the supervision of the Local Government Board and for them to be allowed to include in their ordinary sanitary and public health duties automatically, as they discharge other duties, that of housing, which is now denied them. Why should a rural district council have to go cap in hand to a county council, the centre of which is very frequently removed from the source of the overcrowding and the insanitation that bad housing means? We have 671 rural district Councils, and, in consequence of the restraining action by the county councils, only nine rural district councils have been able to put housing powers into operation. We consider that in this question of housing, where the greater portion of the difficulty and the greater portion of the complaint arises in rural district council areas, many of which are rapidly becoming urban district areas, these authorities ought to have that power without going to the county council or even to the Local Government Board, and this Clause enables them to carry out that power.
  4.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) thinks this Clause goes farther than it should, and he suggested that if rural district councils had this power we should find them universally embarking upon expensive and extravagant schemes of housing. The hon. Member knows probably better than I do the attitude of rural district councils on this and many similar matters. I do not picture to myself at this moment, even with this power, rural district councils bankrupting the local ratepayers by charging the rates with extravagant housing schemes. On the contrary, I believe even with those facilities and this increased power both the county councils and the Local Government Board will be compelled even to persuade and bring pressure to bear upon the rural district councils to carry out their legitimate sanitary duties. The hon. Member also said that local authorities must depend upon private enterprise for housing generally. That may or may not be the case. The hon. Member is honourably associated with
  36
  the name of a family which, to its credit, has done its very best in the large towns for the unskilled labourers. Does he find in his experience that that enterprise has had that effect, or that conversely the action of local authorities has materially depressed private enterprise? That applies to the towns and cities. Where is there any evidence of local authorities in rural district council areas so seeking to build as to compete prejudicially with private enterprise? I need not go into the figures with regard to defective, insanitary, and insufficient housing in the rural districts of this country, which is such a scandal that anything that would stimulate competition between private enterprise and the public authorities in the matter of providing houses where they are now insufficient would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Therefore, on the ground of this Clause dissuading or discouraging private enterprise there is really no argument in the speeches to which we have listened. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) state that this was not the way in which to do this work. He thought probably that there was a way out in the central authority construing housing to be more a matter in connection with public health administration than it is now, and that probably public health could be promoted by means of subsidies and contributions, which they now indirectly receive. If he means that, it is just as much a charge on the taxpayer and ratepayer as if the local authorities compete with private enterprise. So far as the money of the taxpayer is concerned, there is not much difference, and not much to choose between them. In conclusion I would say that what this Clause does is simply to remove the restraints now upon the rural district councils and to give them equal facilities to those now enjoyed by the urban authorities. In a word, it is to give the rural district council the same capacity to grapple with the housing problem as the London County Council now enjoys with regard to its particular area. As to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that this is not a thing to be lightly done, I would say that our experience is that it is not an easy matter to get four people to complain to the rural district council, the county council, or the local authority. The reason why I will leave the hon. Baronet himself to determine, psychologically,

  37
  when he is in the seclusion of his own rural domain. The fact is, in the first place, it is very difficult to get four villagers to complain about anything. Secondly, even if they do complain, the request for housing is to be subjected to the ordeal of a local inquiry. When a local inquiry is to be held, experience shows that the wrong people appear, and try to make it appear that the rural area is an Arcadia, and that nothing is required to be done. Then comes in the Local Government Board to consider the report of the inspector who holds the inquiry. It is not compulsory upon the Local Government Board to adopt the report of an inspector unless he can give good reason for the report being adopted. I can assure the hon. Baronet that he is entirely mistaken if he thinks the Local Government Board on the complaint of four householders or four persons who have been for a short time there, is going to sanction housing schemes in the centre of Salisbury Plain, because these four persons of advanced views, who have been exercising in the recent Territorial manœuvres, say there is a housing grievance. This Clause was discussed in Grand Committee from all points of view, and it was unanimously adopted. It meets with the approval of nearly all the local authorities. It has received practically little criticism up to this stage. No argument has been adduced against it in this House, and I sincerely trust that the hon. Baronet's Amendment will be rejected.
  Lord MORPETH: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Sir F. Powell) pointed out that this Clause was passed unanimously in Committee. It is quite true, but he has not pointed out that we had not in Committee an opportunity of discussing Clause 10, which materially affects this Clause. In fact, this Clause depends upon Clause 10, and unfortunately, owing to the procedure adopted by the Government, the chances of our being able to discuss that Clause are of the very slightest. The President of the Local Government Board repudiated bureaucracy in this matter, but, I am afraid, it was only lip service. He said that what we are doing away with was the necessity for a district council going cap in hand to the county council to ask for powers to deal with their local areas, but those persons will have to go cap in hand to the Local Government Board. I fancy that a rural district council would far prefer to go to a county council, to which they themselves fiend representatives, than to go to White-
  38
  hall, even to the right hon. Gentleman. For my part, I do not think it makes much difference whether we reject this Clause or leave it in the Bill, for it depends on Clause 10. If we were to arrive at Clause 10 we should discover that when the Bill has not been adopted it would then be incumbent on the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry, and, having held that local inquiry, the Act could only be put in force in cases where the powers ought to be exercised. That is a very difficult thing to settle, and I think the Local Government Board will find it is practically impossible to force the local authorities of this country into any very break-neck pace, because all that is proposed by this Bill depends upon money. I gave the Bill general support, and I support it still; but I am afraid that, like some of the other ambitious measures which the Government have brought in. with a great flourish of trumpets, this Bill which we have been told is going to revolutionise the country side and bring about what has been called the colonising of England, will, when passed, show that not very much will happen. I fancy the Local Government Board will find that if they attempt to put burdens on the shoulders of the local authorities beyond what is humanly possible for them to bear, the local authorities will strike, to use a convenient coloquial word. At any rate, it is certain that if the Central Government go on piling these burdens on the shoulders of the local authorities, there may be an informal strike, for even if local authorities were willing to carry out this work, they will find themselves absolutely unable to undertake it, because the finance is not there. But, for my part, I believe that the Clause which allows an extension of the time and gives cheap money is likely to do far more good in bringing about housing than all the coercive action of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman. For these reasons, I believe it is not really material whether we leave this Clause out or not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would point out that not only shall we not be able to discuss Clause 10, but we shall not be able to divide against it, because all the Clauses are going to be put together. Therefore we will be in this awkward position, that we cannot vote separately against the Clauses we disapprove of, and for the Clauses we approve of. Therefore, the only opportunity we have, or are likely to have, of signifying our disapproval of Clause 10 is by voting against Clause 1,

  39
  which has to a certain extent to be read with Clause 10. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not necessary to answer my remarks, because the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. Powell) had made a speech in which he said that the Grand Committee was in favour of the Clause. I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend. The mere fact that the Grand Committee, composed mainly of hon. Members on the other side of the House, were in favour of the Clause, was, in my opinion, evidence that it was a bad Clause. It would certainly be no reason for supposing that it was in any way a good one. The right hon. Gentleman said that I really did not know what this Clause meant, because I had not read Clause 55 of the principal Act. I have read that Clause, and I think I thoroughly understand it. I think the person who does not understand the Clause in the Bill is the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman said this Clause was to remove the restraints now existing on the rural district council. Then he went on to say that they had to go cap in hand to the county council, and that they could not do that which they thought they ought to be allowed to do. I beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause does nothing of the kind. It does much more than that. It does not allow a district council to say whether they will adopt the Clause. On the contrary, it forces the district council to adopt the Clause, which is a very different thing. If the right hon. Gentleman really desires the Clause to carry out what he says it carries out, he ought to amend the Act of 1900 by removing the veto of the county council. Then the Clause would carry out what the right hon. Gentleman says it does. Under those circumstances I think I should be justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to acquiesce in the omission of the Clause, and to bring up on the Report stage a Clause corresponding to what he says it will carry out. If the Clause merely removes the veto of the county council and allows the district council to judge for themselves, with the consent of the Local Government Board as to whether or not they should adopt the Act, I am not sure that I would object to it. Certainly, if I did not object to it, I should not view it with very great favour or hostility. When it takes from the district council the power of initiative of their own, and prevents them from doing what they might like to do, then I object to the Clause.
  40
  The right hon. Gentleman says it is not easy to get four people to complain. I do not agree with him at all. I believe it will be very easy to get four people to complain. I think that, human nature being what it is, there will be a certain number of people only too glad to get the opportunity of complaining. Probably they will be chosen by the Radical caucus. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Local Government Board is not under compulsion to do anything in the way of building houses on the complaint of four people who may have been to Salisbury Plain. We cannot legislate for the Local Government Board being represented for all time by the right hon. Gentleman. We must look to the future, and we must remember that there will be other Presidents. I should be the last person to say anything against the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of time, and possibly in the changes of Government which are not improbable, there may be other Presidents of the Local Government Board, and consequently it is giving to Presidents of the Local Government Board a power which ought never to have been given to any single official. For these reasons the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me at all, and I will vote against the Clause.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I would like to ask, after what the hon. Baronet (Sir. F. Banbury) has said, whether we shall have a chance of voting against Clause 10, or whether our only chance of voting against Clause 10 will be to vote against Clause 1?
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me I have no discretion with regard to this matter. The Order of the House says: "And on the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of clauses to which no notice of Amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each clause." Therefore, I do not think that I have any discretion.
  Viscount MORPETH: Does that mean that any clause of which notice of Amendment is standing on the Paper can be divided on?
  The CHAIRMAN: Any Government Amendment, yes. Because in that case I shall put the clause separately.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Under these circumstances, as the Government has told us nothing about their ideas as to whether

  41
  this Bill is to be self-supporting or not, and have given no reply to the figures which I ventured to bring before the right hon. Gentleman on second reading as to the cost that might be involved, involving possibly an increase in the rates of even 2d. or 3d. or more in any housing scheme, I feel that our only chance of voting against the power of the Local Government Board to force expenditure on the local authorities under the Bill is to vote against this Clause. I am certainly not hostile to the general principle of the Bill, but if we are to have an opportunity of voting against that compulsion and that increase in the rates, possibly against the wish of the local authorities, which under these circumstances I think absolutely unjustifiable, it seems to me that the only opportunity given to those who object is to vote against this Clause.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I would ask the hon. Baronet and hon. Members opposite to consider, as the general question raised has been very seriously discussed in this House and in Grand Committee upstairs, whether, if we had any time at our disposal, we could not make some progress in discussing the real points raised in the Bill? There are, no doubt, points on which there is great divergence of opinion. On the other hand, there are many points as to which both sides of the House are tolerably agreed. But the real Committee points might be dealt with if you left the more general question as much alone as possible. I would urge the House to consider the expediency of devoting as little time as possible to the general question, and to come to the real Committee points, so that a Bill which many of us agree is a most important Bill should receive the fullest consideration possible on the points of the greatest importance.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down illustrates in a most practical way the disadvantages of the guillotine. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friend desire that the Bill should be properly discussed before the House then they should not have brought on the guillotine Resolutions.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help a passing reference to the guillotine. It is, however, out of order for hon. Members to reflect on the decision of the House.
  Mr. CARLILE: I must thank you for your guidance. This is the only opportunity we have of discussing this part of the Bill. The principle of this Clause is
  42
  extended under Clause 10. The Local Government Board ask for power to bring pressure upon the rural district councils. The Local Government Board take no kind of responsibility in the matter. They merely wish power to force expenditure upon the people, and the local ratepayers have got to find the money. All the Local Government Board do is to bring the pressure, and we in our various localities of the country will have to provide the funds necessary for carrying out this work. With all the desire in the world that there should be an abundant supply of good cottages for labourers, we must remember the fact that cottages under the normal conditions cannot be built at anything like a return for the investment. I have had the same experience, I expect, as most hon. Members of this House who have a little land, and build cottages from time to time. One knows very well that if cottages pay 2 per cent., or a little over 2 per cent., it is as much as anybody can expect them to pay, or is likely to find them pay. Then I ask, is it a fair and reasonable thing to call upon local ratepayers to provide the balance of rent which is represented by the difference between, say, 2 per cent., which the ordinary labourer could afford to pay, and the reasonable interest which must be paid upon the loans or money otherwise obtained? It is a most difficult question. This is not giving power for adoption of a plan of this sort, but positively forcing the local authority to adopt it, which is a rather unreasonable thing. However much we may desire to have good cottages it is extremely unjust towards the people in the locality to bring compulsory power to bear on them. Landowners, I should say, would be very glad to have plenty of cottages provided, because if they are not provided as a rule in other ways we have to provide them ourselves, and we always do provide them ourselves; and I think, in my case, I do not charge any rent at all for many of the cottages which I have got. No fair, reasonable return could be expected by any local authority from erecting cottages under this Bill. Is the country prepared to make up the difference? Are the ratepayers willing to undertake this increased burden? I do not know of any district myself where the ratepayers are complaining of the rates being too low. We hear a great many complaints from different sources of the rates going up by leaps and bounds under this Radical Government.
  Mr. LUPTON: You say that which is not true.
  Mr. CARLILE: The hon. Member ought to know that. Reference has been made to the grasping power of the Local Government Board. We do not complain of the grasping power of the Local Government Board. It only relaxes its grasp too easily at present. It is not a grasping power. It is a diffusive power, to which the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to add coercive power not at all tempered with mercy. It is extremely hard on us to divide against this Clause and all that it means when there are many provisions under the Bill which we should like to support. But now this has to be dealt with with a large number of other clauses under this guillotine arrangement. If the local authorities are prepared to face these losses and to provide as one hon. Member already pointed out half the rent out of the rates I am afraid that they will have only themselves to blame. But I do not think that that is the attitude of the local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will find out later on that the local authorities do not approve of having coercive vigorous force brought to bear upon them to provide rent out of the rates in localities where small houses may be in some demand. I think they will find that this is a policy which is not likely to meet with general approval. I do not know that we have power to do any more than to divide against this proposal, but I trust that some further opportunity may be given for discussing the provisions of the Bill.
  Sir C. E. SCHWANN: As a member of the Rural Cottage Society all I can say is that our secretary has been written to from districts where houses are required, and we have found on investigation many cases in which there was practically no opportunity of having houses. We have found cases in which people could not be married simply because there was no cottage within miles open to them or only cottages without any water supply, or in which defective sanitary conditions prevailed. We have sent down an inspector, and when that inspector made his report we communicated with the Local Government Board, and they sent down their inspector, who agreed with the report of our inspector. But when it came to practical work the Local Government Board had no power to enforce rules as to sanitary conditions or the general condition of the
  44
  house. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last mentioned that local bodies would not advance money or take any steps under present conditions. That seems to me the strongest argument why we should give these powers to the Local Government Board, which are contained in Clause 1 and Clause 10, and therefore I shall have very great satisfaction in voting for Clause 1.
  Mr. W. R. ADKINS: I hope it is quite possible for hon. Members while criticising certain portions of other clauses in this Bill, which are indeed great blots upon this, to be able nevertheless to support this Clause. It is not necessary to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in his picturesque expressions as to the local authorities quarrelling with the alleged tyranny of the Local Government Board. Whatever the point of view from which we look upon this question those who realise how important it is will agree in voting for the first Clause of this measure. It has been said by several speakers, because they object as I object to certain things in Clause 10 and some other clauses, that therefore under the peculiar conditions of Debate to-day, the only way to protest against these other parts is to divide on this Clause. I for one desire to enter my protest against the adoption of that method. Here is a clause, which I believe the vast majority, no matter in whatever part of the House they sit, believe to be a good one, yet because they object to something else later in the Bill, they would put us in the very false position, if they were successful in their attempt of striking out this Clause entirely apart from those provisions which are a step in advance in respect of housing. There is no question of a Government Department tyrannising over a local authority, or one local authority tyrannising over another, and this is a perfectly clear attempt on the part of Parliament itself to make universal that which hitherto has only been partial and none too easy to bring about. I cordially vote for this Clause, although I share the objection of hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House to other parts of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 19.

  Division No. 545.]

  AYES.

  [4.35 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paul, Herbert

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barnard, E. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hogan, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cleland, J. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clough, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowlands, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lundon, T.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Cox, Harold

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cullinan, J.

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Verney, F. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Vivian, Henry

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Muldoon, John

  Wardle, George J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Waring, Walter

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ginnell, L

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Valentla, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

  Fell, Arthur

  Stanier, Beville

  Banbury and Hon. Walter Guinness.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Acquisition of Land under Part III., 7 Edw. 7, c. 54.)
  (1) A local authority may be authorized to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, by means of an order submitted to the Local Government Board and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
  (2) The procedure under this Section for the compulsory purchase of land shall be substituted for the procedure for the same purpose under Section one hundred and seventy-six of the Public Health Act, 1875, as applied by Sub-section (1) of Section fifty-seven of the principal Act.
  (3) A local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Local Government Board, acquire land by agreement for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for those purposes.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVEmoved to leave out Sub-section (1).
  This is the only chance I shall have of calling attention to the provisions of the first schedule of the Bill. Having regard to the rules under which we are working, it is quite hopeless that we shall have a chance of moving our Amendments under that Schedule. I take exception to

  47
  Schedule one for four reasons. Hon. Members know that the proposal is that on a compulsory taking of land under this Bill, Schedule one shall take the place, practically speaking, of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act. The effect is this: First, land can be taken, by compulsion without any Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. Secondly, in ascertaining the amount of compensation to be paid to any owner of property, no person interested will have the right to claim a reference to a jury. For the first time under this Bill, and in an Act of two years ago, the power of claiming the decision of a jury is taken away, and the decision, however large the claim may be, is to be given by an arbitrator. These matters are serious. For myself, I do not take very strong exception to them. I am quite prepared to see the procedure simplified, and to do away with the Provisional Order, and, in certain circumstances, to have a reference to arbitration. But on the next point I am strongly opposed to the provisions of the Schedule. As hon. Members are aware, there is to be a single arbitrator nominated, not by the parties, not by the court, but by the Local Government Board. Practically speaking, the Department is in the position of one of the parties to the reference. It is behind the local authority, and the local authority will have very strong weight with the Board, and that the Department should nominate the arbitrator is, I think, a wrong principle. In many of these cases, under Clause 10, or some other part of the Bill, the whole proceeding may be initiated by the Local Government Board itself. It may have to insist upon the Clause being put into operation, and say that land shall be taken for this purpose. That having happened, an Order is drafted by the authority, and made practically by the Board. Then comes the question of compensation. Under this provision the Board has to appoint the arbitrator, who will determine the amount to be paid to the owner. I think that is wrong. In the Finance Bill a provision was introduced by the Government which had the effect that one of the parties to the litigation nominated the tribunal which was to determine the amount. That was objected to, and the Government gave way and provided that the arbitrator should be appointed by an independent body altogether—the Reference Committee in that case. So here we think that the arbitrator
  48
  ought to be appointed, not by the Local Government Board, but as provided under the Arbitration Act, that is, when there is no agreement, by the court. The second point is that under the Schedule it is provided that in certain cases, unless the Board otherwise directs, the arbitrator shall not hear counsel or expert witnesses. That is a matter which has been brought before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) more than once. He received a deputation, who put it before him; and I want to ascertain now, if I can, what is his decision upon it. I can speak perfectly freely on this matter of the employment of counsel, because, in these particular cases, it is impossible that I should ever be retained by either one side or the other. I do think that experience has shown that it is a great mistake to insist that no counsel shall be allowed at these inquiries. It is not the case of a man who employs counsel not paying his own costs: it is quite proper that he should pay his costs except where the arbitrator makes a special order. We had the same point as to counsel upon the Small Holdings Bill, and when that Bill was considered in Committee upstairs I moved to leave out those words in the schedule of the Bill. The answer given was "All we desire is to get control in the matter, and in any case of any real importance sanction will be given readily for counsel to be employed."
  We relied upon that answer, and what has happened since under the Act? A number of applications have been made for leave to employ counsel, and every one of them has been refused. Some of the applications were as to matters of great importance, and in every case the answer has been the same, that the sanction could not be given. One case has-been brought before the notice of the Board where the owner of the land at one of the first inquiries held desired to have counsel. That application was refused, and what was the result? The county council in that case were represented by a very expert clerk of their own. The arbitrator himself was a barrister of great experience, and the owner was represented by a man of no experience, who was not able to bring fully before the arbitrator the points he desired to make. The Order was confirmed, and the owner got no redress. That is one case where I think there is a real denial of jus-

  49
  tice. Let me put a case on the other side that I knew of, a case relating to Northamptonshire. The county council make application for leave to be represented by counsel. In their letter they stated, having regard to the fact that that was the first inquiry as to the confirmation of compulsory orders under the Act, and as certain points of principle and of importance were involved, they thought it desirable the county council should be represented The owner made a similar application, but both were refused. It was a great mistake, I think, that those applications should be refused. It was a breach of the promise given that in all cases of real importance sanction, if asked for, would be given. Having regard to the experience under the Small Holdings Act, I do not think we can rely upon the mere statement that in cases of importance leave will be given. I think, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a serious matter, and that it is very undesirable that the precedent of the Small Holdings should be followed. I do not see the least reason why you could not leave it to the arbitrator either to say whether he will hear counsel, or, which I think better, leave it to him to say whether costs of counsel shall be allowed if they appear. I ask whether he will not himself put down some Amendments to meet the claims of a deputation on the subject, which I thought had been sympathetically considered. I put that point forward, and also press the point as to the appointment of the arbitrator, and without limiting, of course, the objections to the Schedule that may be taken by others I put my opposition to the Schedule mainly on these two grounds, and I beg leave to move the omission of the Subsection.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I have an Amendment on the Paper, and I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not here in order to meet the point I raise. As to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) I quite agree that a reference to arbitration is really necessary for the sake of efficient administration. It will be a cheaper system than the present one, and that is the main reason why I have always supported the Clause. For my part, I should object very much to the introduction of counsel, I do not think they are in the least necessary, and, if I may say so, speaking not as a lawyer but as one interested in local administration, I think there would be very few local authorities that would desire to employ
  50
  counsel and witnesses, and, speaking as a. landowner, I do not think there is any landowner who would wish to do so either. It might occur in some cases, but I think it is a practice to be discouraged. I think it is most desirable to have a thoroughly independent arbitrator, and I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member has said about the selection of an arbitrator. From my experience I should say there is very little difficulty as a rule in the local authority and in the individual landowner fixing upon an arbitrator themselves, and I think that is the best solution of the matter. Failing that solution, I should, in my country at any rate, infinitely prefer that the sheriff would have the appointment of arbitrator in the cases where the local authority and the individual fail to agree. I would most strongly urge that as regards Scotland, because whatever may be the worst opinion of the English Local Government Board held by an English Member, it is as nothing compared to the feeling I hold of the Scottish Local Government Board. I would say that not because of the members of the Board, but because the Board, as it is now, is not constituted to deal with these matters, and it is perfectly incompetent, as now constituted, to do so. Very often assurances are given by the Scottish Office that we shall have a reconstituted Board, but there are no signs of it. I, for one, must see the Board reconstituted before I am disposed to submit the destinies either of the local authority or of the individual in Scotland to its fiat. I do not regard the Scottish Local Government Board as a desirable body with which to entrust the appointment of these arbitrators, and I urge that the sheriff should have the appointment, and that his decision shall be final without recourse to court or county councils.
  Mr. R. D. HOLT: I regard the power under the Schedule with considerable dislike. Under the Bill the position would be that the Local Government Boards without any control of any sort whatever, would be entitled to order the compulsory acquisition of the lands of any person whatsoever in the whole of this country. That, as I understand it, is the proposal actually contained in the Bill. I am connected with a public body and various, public bodies I know have actually acquired lands under compulsory power granted to them by Act of Parliament, and acquired those lands for specific purposes. As far as I understand it, under this Bill

  51
  the Local Government Board have absolutely no authority to take those lands from those bodies and hand them over to somebody else for any purpose they may decide. It does seem to me to say that land which has been acquired by compulsion can be taken from those bodies is rather a tall order and a stiff proceeding. It makes me think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board delivered some time ago, in which he suggested that the best thing to do was that the Government of the country should be handed over to him, was no joke at all, and that this Bill is a small instalment of the method of governing which he really seriously believes the right and proper one. As regards the particular lands, those acquired under statutory powers, those lands have always been exempted under previous legislation of this sort. They have been exempted under the Small Holdings Act of 1908, and when I spoke of the same subject in connection with the guillotine Resolution my hon. Friend, who is now Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and who was then Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, said that those lands were treated under this Act in precisely the same way as they were treated under the Small Holdings Act. He is entirely wrong there, and I cannot help thinking he had it in his mind that the provisions of the Small Holdings Act ought to have been made to apply to the lands acquired by statute and belonging to statutory undertakings. I also draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from regarding such land as appropriate matter to be treated lightly, regards commercial development as of the very highest importance, and in amendment of the Finance Bill his putting down a special clause treating land held for development and for purposes of commerce in a very much more favourable manner than was originally proposed. Therefore, on that ground I think we are entitled to ask that property of that character should receive favourable treatment from the Local Government Board as regards these powers of compulsory purchase.
  5.0 P.M.
  Apart from that particular point, I feel very strongly that we ought to have an absolutely independent inquiry by an independent person before anybody's land is compulsorily taken from him. As the
  52
  hon. Member for Kingston pointed out, the Local Government Board are, in fact, parties to the case. If they have not directly instigated one of the parties to acquire the land, it is their business, and their proper business, to wish to see the land acquired for that particular purpose. That being so, they ought not to be in the position of being judge and jury as well as plaintiff in the case. May I suggest to the Local Government Board that the least they could do is to follow the very proper precedent which was set in the Port of London Act last Session? By that Act they will see that a tribunal was set up for the purpose of obtaining land compulsorily. The substance of the provision is that an impartial person must be appointed to hold the inquiry into the propriety of taking the land by compulsion. In the event of that impartial person reporting against the propriety of doing so, if the Board of Trade or the Port of London Authority wish to proceed any further in the matter, they must proceed by means of a Provisional Order or Bill. If, on the other hand, the impartial person reports in favour of the compulsory acquisition of the land, then, as far as I understand it, the Order of the Board of Trade is sufficient. It seems to me that that would not be at all an unfair or unreasonable way of dealing with this matter. It would not involve any additional expense to that contemplated by the provisions of the Schedule. Under those provisions, if the owner objects to his land being acquired, an inquiry has to be held; therefore, in either case there would be an inquiry; and I cannot suppose that the appointment of an impartial person would be any more expensive than the appointment of a person who is not impartial or who is or may be more or less under the control of the Government. The expense of the inquiry is just the same whether conducted before one inquirer or before another. A further difference is that in the case of an impartial inquiry under the Port of London Act, the Government Department are unable to act contrary to the report of the impartial person; whereas under this Bill, even if the person making the inquiry reports against the propriety of compulsory purchase, the Local Government Board will still have it in their power to proceed. I do not, think that that is treating persons quite fairly, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might give an undertaking so to amend the Schedule as at least to

  53
  incorporate into it the provisions accepted last year by the Government when dealing with the Port of London.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: This Clause only applies to the purchase of land under Part III., and I should like to ask what reason the Government have for treating land purchased under Part III. differently from neighbouring land purchased under Part I.? The case to which I refer will arise under Clause 6 of the original Act, where improvement schemes may include neighbouring land if the local authority are of opinion that such inclusion is expedient or necessary to make the scheme efficient for sanitary purposes. Where land is required for an improvement scheme no allowance is made for compulsory purchase in the case of insanitary property; but Clause 21 of the original Act makes it clear that this provision as to the allowance for compulsory purchase does not apply to lands which are bought for the convenience of the scheme, and which are not insanitary. It seems to me that if there is a case for refusing this allowance for compulsory purchase in the case of Part III. land, you ought in common fairness, and for the sake of uniformity, to extend that principle to these neighbouring lands in the case of Part I. Personally I do not think there is any case in the majority of instances for compulsory powers in regard to Part III. at all. I have no experience of Part III. except in London, but in the Metropolis there has never been any difficulty in getting any amount of land for Part III. housing without applying for compulsory powers. I am a little uneasy about the justice of this Schedule, because it is laid down that no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that that would mean that a man who sells his land will not even get the value of the land to himself. It is quite arguable that he ought not to get the 10 per cent, extra allowed under Land Clauses terms, but I think that he ought at all events to get the value of the land to himself. It may often arise that land has a greater value to the owner than it has in the market. One can easily imagine a case where land has been acquired for the purpose of extending a factory or any other business. That business may have been gradually developed on the assumption that the land would still be available for eventual development, and it may mean a very great loss
  54
  to the owner if he is to get only the market price on the assumption that he is a willing seller. I should like to know whether this provision as to no additional allowance being made on account of the purchase being compulsory will make it necessary to assume that the owner is a willing seller. If so I think it is very unjust. The owner ought to get not the value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, but the actual value to himself, in view of his own peculiar position. If this Clause is passed—personally I do not hold a very strong view one way or the other—it certainly ought to be made applicable to neighbouring lands under Part I. I think there is a greater necessity for acquiring land compulsorily under Parts I. and II. of the Housing Act of 1890 than under Part III., because you may house anywhere under Part III., but in the clearance of a slum area it is absolutely necessary to get a particular plot of ground. For that reason, I should like to hear what are the grounds for restricting this provision to Part III.
  Mr. PHILIP MORRELL: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the desire of the hon. Member to extend the provisions of this Clause to Part I., but I do not understand why he should be unfavourable to the Clause altogether.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: I am only in favour of omitting the Clause if the construction of these words is that the owner will not get the value to himself, and about that I am not in a position to form an opinion.
  Mr. MORRELL: I suggest that the owner will get the full value of the land, which is all that he is entitled to. The objection raised to this Clause is that it simplifies too much the procedure for compulsory purchase where land is required for housing purposes. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) urged a two-fold objection, first, that the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Local Government Board, and, secondly, that he would not be able to hear counsel or expert witnesses except with the leave of the Local Government Board. What hon. Members feel is that this Clause, by making the procedure under the Small Holdings Act applicable to the Housing Acts, will act unfairly to the parties by a too great simplification of procedure. That is the object of the Clause, and if hon. Members object to the Clause altogether that must be their objection.
  Mr. CAVE: No.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am sorry if I have mistaken the hon. Member, but that is what I understood him to say. If that is so, it seems to me that hon. Members are rather out of date. They have forgotten what we have been lately engaged upon. Under the Finance Bill we are to get a complete valuation of the land in the Kingdom. We shall know then what the site value of all this land is, and so far from the task set the arbitrator being a difficult one, when that Bill is passed, it will be extremely easy. All he will have to do will be to take the site value, and then calculate the value of the improvements, which is a far simpler matter than the task now set before him. If there was ever need for counsel and expert witnesses, which I am inclined to doubt, there certainly will not be the need for them when this valuation is made under the Finance Bill. For that reason I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to give any pledge to elaborate still further the procedure for compulsory purchase for housing purposes. What we want most of all in the matter of housing, especially in rural districts, is a simple and easy method of purchasing land compulsorily at its fair market price.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I hope the President will give us his views upon this matter soon. In my opinion the proposals made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) are most reasonable. Personally, as far as the schedule is concerned, I have no objection at all. In fact, I approve of the provision which takes these matters from the present tribunal, which I think a bad one in this case, and gives them to a single arbitrator. It is not at all desirable to have three arbitrators in these cases, as under the Lands Clauses Act, where experience has shown that very often the two assessing arbitrators become advocates of their respective sides, and the umpire is the only one who really performs judicial functions in the case. With regard to the extraordinary proposal that the Department whose conduct is in question should have the sole right of appointing an arbitrator to decide as to the wisdom and justice of the proceeding, I should have thought that, after the experience of the Government on the Finance Bill and the complete surrender they have most properly made upon the subject there, we should not have had any serious contest upon this occasion. I know, however, that the Government often work in watertight compartments; but I should have thought that any assembly would have re-
  56
  volted from a proceeding which puts in issue a number of very controversial matters—including the expediency of compulsory purchase and the fixing of value—and then leaves that issue to be decided by one of the parties whose conduct is involved in the matter. I know it was said on a former occasion that the conduct of the Local Government Board was not in question, but that contention will not bear examination. Under the Schedule, the Local Government Board may disregard the report of their own arbitrator, and sanction compulsory purchase. That power really ought not to be granted, and I trust the Government will see their way to adopt the precedent of the Port of London, referred to by one of their own supporters (Mr. Holt), so that an impartial person may be appointed in an impartial manner to decide upon this question. Then, as regards the procedure to take place before the arbitrator. The procedure which the Government have laid down is really not the procedure of an arbitration, and it is misleading to say that the gentleman who presides at these inquiries is an arbitrator. The whole of the procedure is not one of arbitration, but of valuation This does not pretend to be a valuation, but an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts, with certain modifications. The difference between a valuer and an arbitrator is that an arbitrator has to make up his mind after hearing arguments and witnesses, whereas the valuer acts from his own knowledge, without having before him either counsel or witnesses. I need hardly say that I have ceased to practice, and I have no personal interest in this matter; but I think it right to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are under a misapprehension if they believe that to employ counsel necessarily extends the time. Very often it does not. Probably if you consulted any experienced arbitrator, he will tell you that he preferred to have the matter laid before him with, at all events, the skill and thoroughness which characterises counsel than having inexperienced people splashing about—if I may use the term—in these matters. If it really be the opinion of the Government that this is a valuation and not an arbitration, it is a pity they do not say so, and not, as I think, mislead the country by calling it an arbitration. There is only one further point: I should not like it to be thought that I personally dissent entirely from the 10 per cent, conventional allowance for compulsory purchase not being imposed

  57
  upon the arbitrator. On the other hand, I think it quite wrong that a person who is compulsorily deprived of his land should not have what is often a much smaller allowance, but still an allowance, which he has lost by reason of the transfer. It may be only two or three per cent., but still it ought to be his. The President of the Local Government Board ought not to disentitle the arbitrator to allow that allowance if the arbitrator thinks it ought to be made.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The President of the Local Government Board not having answered my right hon. Friend's appeal, perhaps the Committee will allow me to have a word or two on this point. First of all, in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Morrell). He said that my hon. and learned Friend was against simplification. That is a most misleading way to put the contention of my hon. and learned Friend, who wants an impartial arbitrator instead of a Government arbitrator. There is no reason why an impartial arbitrator should be more complicated than a Government arbitator. Then my hon. and learned Friend wants liberty for the parties who care to do so to employ counsel. That seems to be a matter of common justice. They pay for it themselves. Why should they not employ counsel? Only in that way can they get their case submitted properly to the arbitrator. Why except counsel? Why not prohibit the employment of solicitors too? I think I may say that to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire with some point.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am not in practice.
  Lord R. CECIL: That may be a very good reason. But it really is ridiculous that a man whose land is going to be taken may employ a solicitor and not counsel. What possible reason is there for that? Does counsel waste any more time? I venture to say that the Solicitor-General—and I think he is experienced in both branches—will not tell the President of the Local Government Board that counsel are less competent to take an arbitration than solicitors. When you go to this arbitration you will have against you the local authority—it may be a large authority—and you will have a highly paid and highly trained official conducting their case. He may be, and very often is, a first-rate advocate. He may be a barrister. But in any case he may be a solicitor of great competence. The local authority have their case presented in the best possible way by this
  58
  most skilled advocate. The landowner is prohibited from having anybody in the shape of counsel representing him. What justice is there in that? There was the case to which my hon. and learned Friend referred to in Wales, where, in point of fact, the landowner, living in a somewhat isolated district, was not able to get anyone competent at all to represent him, and in his own opinion he suffered a very grave injustice. I cannot understand why the Government need hesitate to grant this alteration. They have a kind of view that the moment you employ counsel you add very greatly to the expense. [Several Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but then the parties themselves are going to pay for it. What does it matter, except to the parties engaged? Under these circumstances what becomes of the argument of expense? The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had an exceedingly ingenious argument. He said, "Oh, this becomes unimportant, because of the Finance Bill; the valuation of the Finance Bill will make the whole thing simple." I shall be very much surprised if the President of the Local Government Board avails himself of that interesting argument. I respectfully put it that he will be hardly so foolish as to do anything of the kind. I may, at any rate, point out to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire that the valuation is to be as on 30th April, 1909. What guide will that be ten years hence as to the value? Does the hon. Member say that the site value on 30th April, 1909, will be so obviously a guide to the value of the land, which may repeatedly change its character in the ten years, that he will not require any skilled advice? I must say that this does appear to me to be a most unfortunate provision.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will give his favourable consideration to the arguments just put forward. May I point out to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire that if the site value on 30th April, 1909, is always to be a guide to the site value, where on earth is the increment to come from? I think the hon. Member will regret that he ever made that point as an argument against the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. I really think, Mr. Caldwell, that the demand to employ counsel is extremely reasonable. My Noble Friend has set forth what is the opinion of anyone who has ever had any dealings with local authorities. The local authority will probably be represented by the town clerk, who is, in many cases, an

  59
  able solicitor, and, in some cases, a barrister. The landowner in many cases knows nothing whatever about the law or Parliamentary procedure. He has no knowledge of how to put his case before the arbitrator or valuer, whichever it may be. Consequently he will suffer a very great disadvantage. No doubt a landowner, belonging to a county council or to the London County Council, knowing thoroughly the Act, may be able to put his views before the arbitrator just as well as any gentleman learned in the law. But a vast number of landowners have not had that advantage. They are quite at sea, and it would be impossible for them to put their case in the manner in which it ought to be put if they are to have reasonable and fair justice. It is very extraordinary this sudden desire to economise that has spread over the opposite side of the House. A few moments ago they voted in overwhelming numbers for the compulsory adoption of Part III. of the Act of 1890 over the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland. That must cause a very large amount of expenditure to the ratepayer if the Act is adopted and worked. In this particular case the ratepayer would not pay a single farthing. It will be the misguided landowner who will employ counsel, and he will pay out of his own pocket for the advantage which he thinks he is going to get. Have we really come to this: that the Radical party opposite, not content with legislating for every conceivable ill in the universe, are now coming down to say that the wicked class of landowners are not fit to be trusted to say whether or not they may employ counsel? Are the Radical party going to hold that no one may employ counsel unless they have got their permission first? That is legislation run mad! I sincerely trust that on that point, which will not in any way interfere in any way with the objects of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will give way. There are many important points besides to be considered. I must say I do not quite hold the view which my hon. and learned Friend below me has expressed, that the 10 per cent. should not be given for compulsory purchase.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Not necessarily.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, well, not necessarily. If the arbitrator has the option of giving the 10 per cent., I should not have so much to say on that point; but the Clause prevents him giving
  60
  it under any circumstances at all. It takes away from the arbitrator the power that always existed under the Lands Clauses Act. So far as I know the Lands Clauses Act, there is nothing in it which renders the giving of this compulsory. It is entirely optional, but so manifestly just that in many cases it has always been done. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down and wants to abolish it. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) and myself have demolished the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford between us, that the Finance Bill was going to afford a basis of valuation which would be unquestioned. Therefore, the fact remains that there would be different occasions. In some cases, no doubt, the ordinary price which a seller could have obtained might have meant a fair, simple award; in other cases it would be nothing of the kind. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board contemplates land being taken which is near a residence, and which would destroy the amenities of that residence. In the case of land being taken for the purposes of a house or a cottage which is close to a residence or near a garden, or something of that kind, the effect would be to destroy the amenities, and if it is taken something ought to be paid for the destruction of these amenities. That is not covered in this Schedule. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to bring in some Amendment to meet this matter on Report stage. This really only shows the great difficulty we are in in considering this Bill now, practically on 1st September. Here are things that arise when one begins to consider the different Clauses of the Bill. We have never been able to consider it before, and the fact that a few Members upstairs in Committee did consider it in no way assists other Members of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afford us some satisfaction upon this point. I have no doubt he will, and if he does he will mitigate in some way the hostility which is felt on this side of the House to this particular Clause. I propose later to move an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman will see is on the Paper, which would put in the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act as a much more simple way of carrying out the objects of this Bill.
  Mr. JOHN BURNS: It was not out of any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton), that I did not

  61
  rise when he sat down, but it was because there was a generally expressed desire that we should take this Bill upon its merits in a businesslike way, and I thought it advisable that we should hear the Opposition case before I made any reply. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has told the House that he intends to move an Amendment with the object of reinserting Lands Clauses Act terms as the method and process of securing land for houses under this scheme. That statement reveals, I think, to the Committee the fact that the hon. Member himself does not want to give to housing the new facilities and improved procedure that all quarters of the House desire it should get, and I venture to say if he moves that Amendment the hon. Baronet will have very little support, even from his own side of the House.
  Coming to the merits of the subject before us, I may say generally, and it is within the knowledge of the House, that this matter has been discussed at considerable length on this Bill in the House itself and in the Grand Committee upstairs, and by a Special Committee that sat for 36 days in 1907, and beyond these facts the elements of this issue have been submitted very clearly by hon. Gentlemen opposite from their point of view to-day. But, greater than all the experience of Select or Grand Committees on this subject, there is now over a year's solid, useful, practical experience of the method of acquiring land under the Small Holdings Act by which many thousands of acres have been secured, and therefore, as Englishmen dearly love a precedent, I ask the House to adopt the Small Holdings Act method which we incorporate in this Bill, because it is a precedent of practice which has determined the justice of that course, and until I hear evidence of confiscation under the Small Holdings Act, of arbitrary action on the part of arbitrators, and of injustice being done to some parties concerned, I claim, and have every justification for claiming, that a similar process in the Housing of the Working Classes Act will meet with precisely the same reception and will pursue the line of least resistance in this Act as it does in the Small Holdings Act. I hope to justify that optimism by the speeches which have been made. Take the case of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). He puts his objection to this Clause under four heads. He says his chief objection is not that there should be a single arbitrator, but that that single arbitrator should
  62
  be nominated by the Local Government Board. It would, perhaps, better and more clearly express our view on this Bill if I were to give in a few short sentences what this Bill does in its method of acquiring land. It enables not the Local Government Board to acquire land—in that sense we are not a party—it enables the local authority by means of a Local Government Board Order to acquire land. We select that process because it dispenses with confirmation by Parliament, and we can apply the Order at any time without waiting for Parliament to assemble, and therefore it makes for promptitude in meeting the demands of the local authority.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why have a Parliament at all?
  Mr. BURNS: Parliament is not intended for such extra parochial matters as this. We are all Imperialists now, and Parliament ought to consider Imperial questions. It enables the local authority by means of a Local Government Board Order to acquire land. That process avoids delay, makes for economy, and generally for this class of administrative work, for such it is, it is the best plan. The next point that engaged the attention of the House was that of the arbitrator dispensing with the jury. But here I have the support of the right hon. and learned Member opposite, who said he was not enamoured on a question of this kind going before a jury. Neither are the Government, and we have substituted for a jury a single arbitrator. The third point made was that the single arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board is necessarily a prejudiced person. He might be if he was going to buy the land, or if he was a party in the ordinary accepted sense, but he is not. He is an arbitrator appointed by the Board to see that equal justice is done as between the local authority who want the land and the owner who is unwilling to sell the land.
  I may as well point out that the Local Government Board is in the habit of dealing with questions like this, and hon. Members can rely upon it that the arbitrator appointed will most probably be a counsel or an ex-counsel who will be thoroughly able to handle questions of this kind. I think their point of view as to any injustice arising or as to the fairness of price, the owner will be just as content with a single arbitrator appointed by the Board as he would have been in similar circumstances with arbitrators from that particular Board. The fourth point, and the

  63
  one which seems to me to be the strongest, was that it was unjust that counsel or expert witnesses should be denied to one of the parties. I think hon. Members who brought that plea forward had better complete the statement of the fact, which is that counsel and witnesses will be denied to both parties. We think it is in the interests of the local authority that instead of spending so much money, as some local authorities are inclined to do, on counsel and expert witnesses, the money should go to buy more land and better land, and to build better cottages and more cottages. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton), rather agreed, though he qualified it afterwards, under the influence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with our proposal in regard to compulsory purchase. He was not altogether enamoured, he said, of the additional allowance for compulsory purchase being granted in every case.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Of the 10 per cent.?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, the 10 per cent. I leave the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman to settle that point between them, but I think under our scheme the ratepayers will have the benefits. There is a great deal of difference between a local authority using the medium of the Local Government Board for acquiring land for housing, very often in remote districts, where land would be relatively cheap, and the acquisition of land by a local authority under the Port of London Clauses, where trade interests and land of all classes are in dispute. We see no relation between the two cases. The Small Holdings Act has given us a guide and a precedent and experience that were required, and they were inserted in our Bill. We have lifted the small holdings practice and experience into our first Schedule. Nothing as to the terms and conditions of purchase as embodied in our Schedule will defeat the object of this Bill, which we have at heart, namely, to acquire land fairly, honourably, and generously, but as promptly and as cheaply as we can, and for these reasons we ask the House to adopt this Clause.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I entirely support the reasons which the President of the Local Government Board has put forward in support of the Schedule. Outside the requirements of Scotland, I am a warm supporter of this Bill, but in Scot-
  64
  land we have been in the habit of appointing a single valuer, and the practice has generally been for either side to put a case in writing. When we have had so long in Scotland a system which is generally approved of, I would like to know why we should be asked to change it? I think the Lord Advocate will agree will me when I say that if we had been having a Bill for Scotland alone, it is very un likely that we should have departed from the ordinary practice in Scotland, where failing an agreement, the arbiter would be nominated by the sheriff. Why should we depart from that practice in favour of a proposal that the appointment of arbiter should rest not with the Local Government Board in London but with the Local Government Board for Scotland which has not been constituted to do anything of the kind? If the Government do not like to answer this point now, I would urge them to take it into their serious consideration before this Bill goes to an other place.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I do not think I can give an undertaking that the Government will seriously consider the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend. This is a single simple duty which it is proposed to throw upon the Local Government Board for Scotland. That Board is already in the habit of nominating experts for a variety of different purposes, including this very purpose. I think the Local Government Board for Scotland is just as competent as the sheriff to nominate a valuer to value a bit of ground. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Munro Ferguson) will find that frequently probably the very same individual will be named by the Local Government Board for Scotland as would be named by the sheriff to value in a particular locality With regard to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns) said as to the probability of counsel or ex-counsel being appointed so far as I know the procedure and practice in Scotland, it is highly unlikely that counsel or ex-counsel will be nominated I do not quite understand the phrase "ex-counsel." In Scotland we usually nominate a valuer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs is wrong in supposing that we are making any change in the practice of the law in Scotland. For these reasons I think we must allow the Schedule to stand in its present shape as far as Scotland is concerned. My hon. Friend will see that there are a number of other items in the Schedule which invoke

  65
  the aid of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and when discharging those duties that Board might as well be allowed to perform the simple and harmless duty of appointing the person who will have to fix the price of the ground.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: As the Government apparently did not understand what I said about 10 per cent., perhaps I had better state what I meant to convey. I agree that the conventional allowance of 10 per cent. is too much. There are cases in which the allowance ought to be more and others in which it ought to be less. What I object to is the provision which disentitles the arbitrator giving any allowance at all. I agree with the Lord Advocate that the functions to be performed by an arbitrator, who I prefer to call a valuer, will be better performed by valuers than counsel.
  Mr. CAVE: May I state why I ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment? Except under the peculiar circumstances in which we are discussing this Amendment, I am sure that the Government could not maintain for a moment the provision that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Local Government Board. The proposal that that Board should nominate the person to fix the price is such a gross injustice that if we had time for a full discussion I feel sure it could not be maintained. I hope we shall protest against this proposal by dividing, and, if we are unsuccessful, I hope the matter will be set right at another stage.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 546.]

  AYES.

  [5 55 p.m.

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Malley, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Paul, Herbert

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Berridge, T.H. D.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hogan, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Robert, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jackson, R.S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Clough, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Keating, M.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seely, Colonel

  Crean, Eugene

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Crosfield, A.H.

  Lundon, T.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cullinan, J.

  Macdonald, J.R. (Leicester)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Duckworth, Sir James

  M' Micking, Major G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Vivian, Henry

  Elibank, Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Evans, Sir S. T

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wardle, George J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Muldoon, John

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Ginnell, L.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Winfrey, R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George.D

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Stanier, Beville

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Foster, P. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cave and Hon. Walter Guinness.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mr. H. C BRODIEmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "compulsorily" ["a local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily"] to insert the words "and hold the same."
  The Amendment is not a very great one, but it is one which will considerably strengthen the powers of purchase under this Bill, and I hope it will be accepted by the Government. I do not think it is an Amendment which is likely to be objected to by the Committee as a whole, or by the Government. The Committee upstairs, and, I take it, the Government, approved in principle of the holding of land by a local authority. It will be noticed in Subsection (3) of this Clause that the local authority may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, hold land which it has purchased by agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the land is not immediately required for the purposes of the Act. Then, again, in the 1900 Bill, it will, no doubt, be in the recollection of several Members of the Committee that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green moved an Amendment extending the powers of the local authority, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. H. Chaplin), who was in charge of that Bill, agreed that some such power should be given. He said there would be no limitation to the powers of purchase so long as the land was used for the purposes within the provisions of the Act, and that neither would there be any obligation to sell unless the land was not required for the purpose for which it was purchased, and that even then the Local Government Board would have a dispensing power and be able to say the land should not be sold. In face of that promise the hon. Member for Bethnal Green withdrew his Amendment. I refer to that to show that in the late Parliament there must have been no objection to the principle of the extension of powers of this sort. I venture to think the Local Government Board should not under any circumstances insist upon the
  68
  sale of land by a local authority who wishes to keep it for the purposes of the Act. I should, on the contrary, like it to be an instruction to the Local Government Board to refuse permission to any local authority to sell land which it has acquired for public purposes. I trust the Government will see their way to accept this proposal, and that the Committee will approve of it. Surely, it is only wise to encourage local authorities to acquire land several years in advance, and it would, in my opinion, be very unwise, simply because land, or portions of it, was acquired compulsorily, to insist upon a local authority selling it when they are not able to use it.
  Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend has moved his Amendment owing to a misconception as to what the Clause is really going to carry out. I think his Amendment is totally unnecessary.
  Judging from his speech, anyone would think that land acquired even compulsorily under this Bill could not be used for any other purpose. That is not so. Land purchased for one purpose can, owing to the 1907 Public Health Act, Section 95, now be used for another purpose. That disposes of that particular point. Secondly, he asked: Can a local authority hold land if purchased under this Bill? Certainly it can. That is our interpretation. I am sure the hon. Member will listen to my answer to his third point with equal pleasure. A local authority can now hold land purchased by agreement if not immediately required. The hon. Member could not have had those three facts in his mind when he put his Amendment down, and certainly not when he made his speech. The only thing the Clause would not allow to be done is this: It is presumed a local authority would have the intention within some reasonable time of housing people on land to be acquired. A local authority at Kingston, for instance, ought not to be able to schedule land say at Aldershot, or half-way between,

  69
  because it anticipates what might turn out to be purely imaginary requirements for houses. The object is to give local authorities genuine opportunities of acquiring land, both voluntarily and compulsorily, when that land comes within the perview of reasonably expected housing requirements. I sincerely trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. If he does, we cannot in the light of what we have said, see our way to accept it
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I am afraid I shall be obliged to ask the right hon. Gentlemen for some explanation. If we are to understand from his answer that authorities may hold land which is acquired compulsorily for the purpose of housing under Part III., even although they are not going to use it immediately for that purpose, how comes it that it should be distinctly stated in Sub-section (3) that the authority, providing they acquire the land by agreement, may hold it, even although there is no immediate requirement? Does not that pre-suppose they cannot hold it where it is compulsorily acquired? It seems to me that is the natural interpretation of the Clause. Where the land is compulsorily acquired it must be used immediately. There must be some immediate prospect of using it, or it cannot be held. It is only in cases where it is acquired by agreement that it can be held, even although it is not used immediately for that purpose. That is how it appears to me, and I should like some explanation.
  Mr. BURNS: I trust my hon. Friend will see there is a difference between a local authority holding land acquired by agreement and holding land purchased by compulsion. If you dispossess a man of land of which he is already in profitable exploitation, it stands to reason that, that land is likely to be more near to towns, or to housing centres, than land not similarly used, and the Local Government Board and the Government take the view that local authorities should not be encouraged in land speculation as distinct from the acquisition of land for bonâ fide housing purposes, especially at the beginning of this Housing and Town Planning experiment. We think we are right in giving the interpretation to the Clause which I have previously intimated. Where a local authority purchases land by compulsion, it will be able to hold that land; where they have acquired it by agreement, they will be able
  70
  to hold it; and even under this Clause, by Section 95 of the Public Health Act of 1907, land acquired either by compulsion or by agreement could, in the event of it not being used for the purposes of this Bill, be otherwise used. We think that for the moment, and in order to safeguard local authorities from too ambitious enterprises in the direction of land speculation, it is advisable for us to be reasonably cautious in the methods that we place within the powers of the local authorities. I believe this Bill, wisely carried out, will be of very great good to the community, but it may be a source of great peril if land speculation, instead of the acquisition of land for bonâ fide housing purposes, were embarked upon. I trust, upon that explanation, the hon. Member will accept the Government's view and let the Clause go as it is.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I quite agree that it would be entirely undesirable to encourage local authorities in land speculation, but I think the point of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ward) is important. I should like to be corrected if my construction is wrong. It is this: If a local authority compulsorily acquires land for the purpose of Part III., it must use that land for that purpose only, and use it with reasonable despatch for that purpose. I think a greater latitude is naturally and legitimately permitted in the case of land acquired by agreement. It is important that local authorities should understand that, if they use the compulsory powers of this Act to acquire land for the purposes of housing, they must not only use it for that purpose, but use it with all reasonable despatch.
  Mr. T. HART-DAVIES: I do not quite understand whether, where a local authority acquires land by compulsion, it can hold it for any amount of time. The Bill is rather vague, but, if that is so, I do not know why, in Sub-section (3), the words by agreement" are inserted at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain whether, if a local authority acquires land by compulsion, it can hold it, and whether it can use it for any other purpose?
  Mr. BURNS: The Sub-section reads: "A local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Local Government Board, acquire land by agreement for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for those purposes." Let me take a concrete case. The London

  71
  County Council bought 200 acres of land at Tottenham. Only a certain portion was immediately needed for houses, and, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, the remainder of the land was let for ultimate housing purposes. A similar thing would happen with regard to land acquired by compulsion. It is important at this stage to make it clear that, under the provisions of this Bill, the authorities must be given these wide powers to hold land taken by agreement; and I venture to say that the local authorities could no have wider or more reasonable powers conferred upon them than by this provision.
  Viscount MORPETH: If one word were added to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Reigate, we should arrive at the very same state of affairs which we have been denouncing for weeks past, namely, the holding up of land. If it is wrong for a private owner to hold up land, it must be equally wrong for a municipality or for a county council to speculate in land in the same way. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made the matter quite clear to the Committee. He said that under Sub-section (3) the local authorities might acquire land by agreement, although it is not immediately required. I should like to see municipalities looking ahead and buying land in the outskirts of a town in view of the future, but I quite understand the land ought not to be applied to other purposes than that for which it was bought. As the Clause stands it is very ambiguous. It is necessary to make it clear to what extent they can buy land under compulsory powers and then withhold it.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: The right hon. Gentleman has dilated on the ambitions of local authorities, but why should not municipalities be allowed to acquire compulsorily and hold land, notwithstanding the fact that it is not immediately required for housing purposes? What are the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman seems to fear?
  Mr. BURNS: What I said was I was not anxious that the local authorities should be too ambitious of buying land for speculation, but I hope they will bf ambitious by agreement or compulsion in acquiring land for bonâ fide housing schemes which it is their intention to carry out.
  Mr. PARKER: I do not see how you are helping municipalities by limiting this Clause. I would prefer to wait until our land valuation proposals are in active operation. I want to see them working, because I am convinced that when those proposals are put into operation the municipality will be able to acquire land more quickly and at fairly legitimate prices. I do not see why some provision should not be laid down with regard to compulsion as applied in Sub-section (3) of this Clause with regard to land which is acquired by agreement. I do not think there is any danger of our municipalities going too fast in the matter of acquiring land. Hitherto they have gone much too slowly, because of the prices which have had to be paid for it.
  Mr. BRODIE: I very much regret the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept my Amendment, and, under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Public Health Act, 1907, leaves a loophole which enables local authorities to hold land, even when acquired compulsorily.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONmoved to leave out from Sub-section (1), the words "Part III. of the principal Act ["compulsorily for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act"], and to substitute the words "the Housing Acts."
  I have put this Amendment down because a number of Scottish Members hold the view that the Clause as it stands unduly restricts their powers of acquisition. It might confine the operation to the purchase of land for lodging-houses; it may be desirous to acquire it for other purposes.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member has given good reasons for wishing to apply the Amendment of the Housing Bill to Scotland. I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not present to deal with the particular Scotch aspect of the question, but I must say at once I cannot accept this Amendment, which would impose a disability upon England, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it at this stage.
  Viscount MORPETH: I think it is very unsatisfactory that when presumably an important Amendment is moved by a Scotch Member we are unable to consider it because the Lord Advocate is not present. Surely, as this Bill is only down for

  73
  two days, the hon. and learned Gentleman might be present in order to discuss the Government proposals from the point of view of their Scotch peculiarity. I must say I should think it extremely undesirable that under the guise of buying land for the purpose of housing the working classes the municipal authorities should speculate in minerals. I do suggest that the further consideration of this matter should be postponed.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: I raised this point because the other day sandstone was declared to be a mineral.
  Viscount MORPETH: I think it is most unsatisfactory that an attempt should be made to inveigle us into a discussion on the question of minerals.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I made a few remarks earlier in the evening in regard to a, comparatively, few of the evil results which would follow if this measure became law, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a very simple measure, and that this Clause would provide against any of the evils which I thought might arise. Am I right in understanding that the effect of this Clause will be to allow local authorities to speculate in coal and minerals? I understand from my hon. Friends near me that that is only the effect of the Amendment, and if that is so, I hope it will not be passed, and in that case I shall probably find myself in the same Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman, though I did not quite gather from his remarks whether he is in favour of it or not. I am told he said he would consider the Amendment, and I hope he will withdraw that remark, and will not allow local authorities to speculate in coal and minerals.
  Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend is entirely mistaken, and attributes to me views which I do not hold. I appealed to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment at the present stage, so far as England was concerned, as it was not acceptable, and on the Scotch question, I have said, I did not intend to give any particular view in. the absence of the Lord Advocate. I only claim in regard to the Scotch matter to be the means of communication between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson) and the Lord Advocate, who has been here this afternoon. I am merely the means of communication as to whether the hon. Member's Amendment is applicable to the Scottish conditions, but my own view is that we ought not to accept it so far as England is concerned,
  74
  partly for the reasons given by the Noble Lord the Member for Birmingham (Viscount Morpeth).
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I should very much like to know why we should not have the advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate. We have only got one Cabinet Minister here, and we might at least, I think, have one Law Officer. I think that, considering the difficulties under which we are working, we should be given every facility for obtaining explanations. We are not allowed to discuss much, but I think we ought to have the presence of a Law Officer to advise us in regard to what we do discuss, especially as he is paid for it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do think the position in which we are placed illustrates with striking vividness the position in which the House of Commons is put by the guillotine. We are asked to discuss this Amendment under great difficulties, one being that an Amendment moved by a Scottish Member cannot be dealt with properly because there is nobody here who knows what the law of Scotland is. Surely that is the acme of degradation to which even this Government has reduced the House of Commons. If the Lord Advocate cannot be here perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland can, but we ought to have some answer on this point.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS (Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board): This is the first, occasion on which I have addressed the House for a good many Sessions, although I used to take an active part in the Debates of the House in years gone by. I feel sure, however, that the Committee will extend to me the indulgence which is usually extended to a Member who addresses the House for the first time, and I am more in need of the indulgence because an appeal has been made for a Law Officer, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend raises certain questions which present aspects of difficulty. I would like, however, to ask the Committee to consider what the effect of accepting this Amendment would be. The effect of accepting it would be to extend the procedure of Clause 2 in regard to Part III. to Part I. and Part II. of the Act of 1890, and it would, in fact, extend these compulsory powers that are now applied in the case of Part III. to Parts I. and II. For myself, I confess when I approached

  75
  the Amendment of my hon. Friend I was under the impression that that might be a good thing to do; but, on going into it more carefully, it appeared to me that the disadvantages enormously outweighed the advantages of that proposal. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend were inserted in the Bill it would have the effect of introducing duplication of procedure and confusion into our housing schemes. Indeed, in the future, it would be necessary for a scheme under Part I. or Part II. of the Act of 1890 to go through two processes, neither of which would be complete and neither of which would be brought to fruition without the other. The machinery would have to be duplicated at almost every point, and I cannot see any way out of it. There would have to be two inquiries, one made with counsel and witnesses, and the other without: two sets of notices would have to be issued; and the Order would have to be submitted to the Board and confirmed in one case, and in the other case a different procedure would have to be adopted. One could illustrate this duplication of procedure to an almost infinite extent. It would imply additional cost, trouble, and responsibility to the local authority, and under those circumstances it would, I think, be a very great mistake to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. But there is a further disadvantage attaching to the acceptance of his Amendment. May I draw his attention to a fact, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred, that under Section 21 of the Act of 1890 the arbitrator has received certain directions with regard to the litigation and the amount of compensation to be given, and if this Amendment were adopted it would abolish the power of the arbitrator to receive evidence that the rental had been enhanced by the property being used for illegal purposes; he would not be able to take into account the fact that the house was overcrowded, or dangerous, or injurious to the health of the inmates, and that it was a nuisance or in a state of defective sanitation, or was not in good repair. The arbitrator may, under the Act of 1890, base the amount of compensation upon the valuation of the house after the nuisance had been abated or after it had been put into a, sanitary condition, or reasonably good repair, after deducting the estimated expense of abating the nuisance, or putting the house into reasonable repair, and if the house is not fit for human habitation the arbitrator has to
  76
  award compensation simply on the value of the land. Under these circumstances, by his Amendment, we should lose the benefit of what we consider to be a substantial advantage under this Bill, but I am not quite sure whether it entirely commends itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It does, however, commend itself to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and I therefore venture to hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Parker), as to the first part, turns upon a point we have already dealt with, and the latter part is not in the right place. Then, I think the discussion this afternoon, although I did not hear the whole of it, the discussion on the omission of the Subsection, was really more on the omission of the Schedule than on the omission of the Sub-section. That being so, I think we must take it that the words as to the Schedule are left in, and therefore the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will not be in order.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of order, Sir. May I submit that it is not quite correct to say that the discussion was to a large extent on the omission of the Schedule, but that the Debate was confined to other points? I do not seek to amend the Schedule, but to omit it altogether, and may I point out that under the rules under which we are now working the question of the Schedule will probably never be put, but it will be put with several other clauses. Therefore I hope that we shall have some little latitude given to us on this point as to whether or not my Amendment should be discussed, which involves the point of whether the Schedule should stand part of the Bill. The effect would be to substitute the old provisions of the Land Clauses Act, and it would be necessary then to leave out the Schedule when we get to it, and under these circumstances may I submit that I may be allowed to move my Amendment? I should not speak very long, but I think we ought to have some discussion upon it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is quite correct in saying that there was a good deal of detailed examination of the schedule, and as I do not know that the hon. Baronet's point was specifically raised. I shall allow him to move his Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURYmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by means of an Order submitted to the Local Government Board and confirmed by the Board in accordance with the First Schedule of this Act."
  The effect of this will be, followed as it is by a consequential Amendment in the next sub-section, to leave out the words "substituted for," to make the Clause read: "A local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act. (2) The procedure under this Section for the compulsory purchase of land shall be the procedure for the same purpose under Section one hundred and seventy-six of the Public Health Act, 1875, as applied by Sub-section (1) of Section fifty-seven of the principal Act." The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the reason he had adopted this particular procedure was because it had been so successful under the Small Holdings Act, and he informed us that there had been no dispute or question of injustice arising under that Act. May I ask if he read in to-day's "Times" a letter from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Anson), which shows that, according to his view, at any rate, injustice has arisen, under that particular Act. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the advantages of this procedure were that the purchase was quick and there was no delay, as if Parliament was not sitting you got the whole case through, and you had not to go before Parliament, and you had much better go to the Local Government Board. I intervened, and I asked why have any Parliament at all, and I ventured to ask what was the use of Parliament if all these cases in which the property of people was dealt with were not submitted to Parliament, but submitted to a Star Chamber presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It was always held part of the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country that their property should not be taken away without Parliament investigated the matter and adjudged that the property might be taken. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not appeal if he wishes to influence me to anything that the present Government have done. I consider everything they have done is wrong. I do not remember them
  78
  ever having done one right thing, and I shall not be converted by the fact that this procedure was inaugurated under the Small Holdings Act of 1907. With the exception of the Light Railways Act I do not believe there has ever been a case until the Act of 1907 where property has been acquired in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes unless the owner has had an opportunity of showing that a price should be fixed according to some regard to what he considers to be the value of the property. Further, it should not be taken away from him by four people who have an appeal to one person, because that is the effect unless my Amendment is carried. I admit the one person is the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not always right. These five together may practically settle the price and take the property of some honest person who does not desire to part with it. The right hon. Gentleman himself is to name the arbitrator. That is a point which ought to be very carefully considered by the Committee before they allow the Clause to become part of the Bill. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not meet me, will at least show some real argument why he cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Baronet says he views with suspicion the procedure to acquire land set up by this Bill, and he is not at all mitigated in his opposition to the Bill and its method of acquiring land by the fact that this procedure, or worse, had been applied in three particular instances, namely, the Port of London Act, the Small Holdings Act, and the Light Railways Act. The hon. Baronet cannot get pure and undefiled what he interprets as the Lands Clauses method of acquiring land, therefore he hopes to secure as an alternative between the Lands Clauses method and the method in this Bill—the small holdings conditions—the method of acquiring land set up by the Public Health Act, 1875. We object to the alternative suggested by the hon. Baronet, because we think only one degree less objectionable than the Lands Clauses themselves for this purpose are the Public Health Act, 1875, terms. The procedure of the Public Health Act is that the land shall be acquired by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. That we object to for reasons that I have frequently stated to-day. The procedure has to be done at a particular time of the year, which in itself makes for delay, which would be frequently incon-

  79
  venient and which would delay some housing schemes certainly for nine months at least, and in some cases probably a year or 15 months. It also embodies the Lands Clauses 10 per cent., which we cannot accept, and which is not universally approved of for this purpose by hon. Members on the other side of the House. Instead of a single arbitrator it asks for two arbitrators, and, if necessary, an umpire, a cumbrous method that we object to. It is because we think it is as slow and cumbrous as the Lands Clauses and equally extravagant that we cannot accept the views put forward by the hon. Baronet.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I am not at all satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He apparently founds his objection on the ground that it is cumbrous and causes delay. The right hon. Gentleman would like to go back to the days of Louis XVI., and he would like to be on the throne, and to have everything done that he, with the best of intentions, decided. There would be no delay, and everything would be done at once. But that is not in accordance with the ideas of free Englishmen. I am surprised at hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway being so anxious that the head of a Department should control their destinies. I should have thought they would prefer the old-fashioned arrangements, whereby a little freedom was secured to a man, even if he happened to be so unfortunate as to own a little property.
  Mr. BURNS: I do not think it ought to go forth that the suggested method of acquiring land for housing under this Bill is quite as summary and as drastic as the hon. Member suggested. There has to be a public inquiry. Notices have to be given. The ordinary forms for these inquiries take a considerable time, and if the hon. Baronet thinks I am coming down in a motor car from the Local Government Board one day, with only 24 hours' notice, to dispossess him of his rural property on purpose to house his more humble neighbours, and to complete that operation within 24 hours, that is an imaginative description of what is not to take place that I cannot accept. When he suggests that the Local Government Board is a modern Star Chamber, and that I am Judge Jeffreys, it is a ridiculous interpretation of my office, especially in the light of criticisms which frequently come to me that we are not so quick as we might be, and that we are
  80
  more considerate of other people's rights than we ought to be, and that generally we go about our work decently and in order. The hon. Baronet can rely upon it that we are going to work this Bill fairly and reasonably with a considerable degree of common-sense, and the hon. Baronet may rest assured that the authors of this Bill would not have framed it unless that was their intention.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CAVEmoved, at the end of Subsection (1), to insert the words, "but this provision shall not apply to any common land within the meaning of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to any open space used by the public for purposes of recreation."
  I move this Amendment only for the purpose of putting one point. The Government have met us fairly, I think, in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has put down a new Clause which gives a great deal of protection to common land. It provides that common land cannot be taken unless land is given in exchange equally advantageous to the commoners. That is to be ascertained by certificate. The new Clause provides that the certificate is to be given by the Local Government Board. It has always been the practice, I think, to confide the care of common land to the Board of Agriculture, and I should like to see the Clause modified in this respect: that, instead of that certificate being given by the Local Government Board, it shall be given by the Board of Agriculture, which has regard to the interest of the commoners, and is accustomed to deal with common land.
  Mr. BURNS: The Clause which I have put down, I believe, gives general satisfaction to everyone who has interested himself in the preservation of parks, commons, and open spaces, as no objection or criticism from any Commons Protection Association has appeared up to now in any form whatsoever; the House can take it from me that the Clause generally meets with their approval. We have no prejudice against the Board of Agriculture, but, on the contrary, we work especially in the matter of parks, commons, and open spaces most harmoniously with them. But we think for the purpose of this Bill the authority responsible for the granting of the certificate, which may deal with the making up of roads,

  81
  the gradient of roads, the exchange of land, and with town planning—a number of very important matters which can only be within the purview of the inspectors who hold the Local Government Board inquiry—should be granted by the Local Government Board. In no case will that certificate be granted by the Local Government Board until after they have consulted with the Board of Agriculture.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his answer about the Board of Agriculture. There are very numerous precedents of this kind in private Acts of Parliament where the taking of commons has been authorised. In every case, I think, the Board of Agriculture is the Department which is entrusted with the duty. Under these circumstances it will be very inconvenient that where land is taken under this particular Bill those who are interested in commons have to go to a different Department from that which they would have to go to in any other case. I should have thought that it would have been better to make this legislation conformable to all previous legislation. I trust the President of the Local Government Board will consider that particular point.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, if he is going to reframe this Amendment, or suggest a Clause dealing with commons and open spaces, he will make it as irksome for private individuals to enclose commons as for public authorities to do so when land is required for the purpose of housing schemes. I should like also to ask whether the Board of Agriculture has any power to interfere in these matters. On several occasions, in connection with a matter in which I was concerned, I have been told, in answer to questions, that the Board of Agriculture had no power to interfere.
  Mr. CAVE: I may inform the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ward) that no common can be enclosed without the consent of the Board of Agriculture. I am not satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, but as he has been very reasonable I do not wish to press the Amendment. I still hope that he will consider my point before the Report stage. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["First Schedule to this Act"] to insert the words "but this provision shall not apply to any land which, at the date of the order, has been acquired by the owners thereof for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking." The object of this Amendment is to exempt any land held by a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, under Parliamentary powers for specific purposes, from the operation of the Bill. Public bodies of this kind stand in a different position from private owners of land. They have had certain powers given to them by Parliament, and for their execution they are responsible. Under these powers they purchase land for the purposes of their undertakings. Some of it is purchased for present and some for future purposes, and it is a very serious thing that the head of a public Department should have power to interfere with the operation of the Acts under which the land is acquired. The title by which public bodies hold land is a higher title than the President of the Local Government Board seems to imagine. It is a monstrous thing that the Local Government Board or a local authority should have power to interfere with the intention of Parliament, and take away from these public bodies land which they hold for public purposes—land which they cannot sell, but which they are bound to devote to the purposes for which they have bought it. That is evidenced by the fact of the method by which the Local Government Board are to proceed. The arbitrator to which the dispute is to be referred is to be the nominee of the Local Government Board. His fees are to be, fixed by the Board, and paid by them, and I say it is an unusual and, indeed, unprecedented proceeding for a Department to be judge in its cause, and to appoint the officer who is to decide the matter in which it is involved. Take the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, of Liverpool. There you have a body which does not work for profit at all. It only works pro bono publico. It has entrusted to it the great responsibility of the trade of the Mersey. It has taken a far-sighted view with respect to the future. The Mersey Board has seen that the size of ships is increasing year by year. It has to provide for the increased size of ships and for the extension of the port. It has purchased land adjacent to its docks which it does not require at the present time, and which

  83
  it intends to hold—it may be for ten years or more—until the purposes of the port have reached a point when docks of the kind which they foresee will be actually required. It is most unprecedented that the local authority, backed up by the Local Government Board, should have power to go to the Mersey Board and say, "We want this land for housing. We want it now, and therefore you must surrender it to us." If it did not go so far as that, it might say, "Give us a strip at all events," and by taking a strip of that land it might make the rest of it impracticable for the purpose for which it is intended. The President of the Local Government Board thinks the Government in this matter is acting according to precedent. The precedents in this case are all on one side. If we look at the principal Act, the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, we find that before you can acquire land there has to be a Provisional Order passed through Parliament. Therefore, Parliament has an opportunity of deciding on the matter. Then in the case of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, railway, dock, and other companies of that kind, which hold their land under statutory powers, have their land specially exempted from the land which can be purchased without consent. There is a special privilege given to those bodies over private owners.
  I do not know that the President of the Local Government Board can point to a single precedent in previous legislation where the position of canal, dock and railway companies has not in one way or another been specially safeguarded. We want to know why the right hon. Gentleman has deviated from those precedents in this case. Why should the Bill be so framed that land belonging to these companies can be appropriated by local authorities when the land is held under Act of Parliament? The lands have been acquired for the purposes referred to, and why should the local authority get power to acquire them because they are needed for some other purpose which may not be so important? My hon. Friend referred to the Port of London Bill, and he was reminded that in that case the Government proposed to do what they propose to do here. They proposed to empower the Board of Trade to take land for dock development by compulsory purchase; but that was altered by Parliament, and it was decided that there should be an independent inquiry and an independent
  84
  arbitrator. Why should that not be done here? It seems to me that the reply of the President of the Local Government Board was a very singular one. He said that there were important interests involved in the case of the Port of London which did not exist in any other port. Are the interests there different from the interests in the Ports of Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, and Bristol? I venture to say that the interests in these ports are quite as valuable as the interests connected with the Port of London. It is quite as important that special provision ought to be made in respect of the cases I have mentioned, as in the case of the Pont of London. I conclude by saying that hon. Members on this side of the House view with great apprehension the disposition of the present Government to push the bureaucratic system of government in this country. I can quite understand that disposition from the altruistic point of view, but not from the Liberal point of view. It appears to me to be even a dangerous tendency, which has appeared in very much of its legislation, and which, I am glad to say, has been withdrawn when pointed out to it. I do hope that on this occasion, also, where it is proposed to invest the Local Government Board and local authorities with powers which we view with great apprehension, the Local Government Board will think a second time before it refuses to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member, in moving the Amendment, asks practically and absolutely that all land owned by railway, dock, canal, water, and other public companies shall be exempted from the conditions that apply to other land to be secured by local authorities for building houses. We see no reason why land owned by railway, dock, harbour, or canal companies should be differentially placed as compared with any other land, and particularly as those corporations may happen to have, as sometimes occurs, a great deal of surplus land that might be advantageously used for the housing of their own employés, and, incidentally, not to the detriment of the dock or railway company itself, but generally for the public convenience. I waited in the hope that the hon. Gentleman, in moving the Amendment, would give some reasons why railway companies should be differentially treated as compared with private owners, or other holders of land in this country; and he did not give a single reason. May I put this to him? In giving these com-

  85
  panies power to acquire land, it was the intention of Parliament that it was to be used for public purposes and public benefit, and to subserve through them the interests of the common weal. It was only for that purpose that compulsory powers of purchase were given to them; but if another public purpose supervenes, which in any degree of necessity is greater than the original one, in my judgment the most recent, and, as happens in this case, the most decent ought to prevail. We think that a railway company ought not, when it has land in excess of its requirements, be allowed to hold that land in perpetuity as against the community, or probably a town planning scheme, to the detriment of adjoining owners; but that by mutual interchange of land reasonable give and take, and a reasonable price being given to the private owner, the local authority, the general public, and the railway itself, should be benefited by such a process. The hon. Member's speech was based on this supposition that we were likely to schedule land owned by the London and North-Western Railway Company, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, near towns, docks, and harbours, where the land is dear. That is very improbable—I believe almost impossible—because the mere cost of buying under the Lands Clauses, or under Small Holdings terms, such lands for housing purposes, and especially cottages, would be so prohibitive in price that there would be no inducement, either for a local authority, or for the Local Government inspector, to schedule the land on the mere ground of cost. This will rarely occur. Another reason why it is likely not to occur is that the noise, the smoke and the inconvenience that arise necessarily from railways, docks, harbours, canals and similar works, are in a general way also prohibitive of their land being earmarked and scheduled for ordinary housing purposes, so that to any extent this is not likely to occur. It would be a great advantage for railway companies, and for the big towns and cities if the conditions which will prevail in the future with regard to town planning schemes under this Bill, had applied in London and its suburbs years ago. If they had applied we would not have seen the aesthetical and physical and sanitary abomination that are to be witnessed in places like Clapham Junction, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, and many other places where railway companies through lack of the provisions in this Bill were compelled to pay through the nose for land at
  86
  an excessive price, and were in many cases subject to gross exactions by some of the local authorities. What we ask under this Clause, both under housing and town planning, is, first, with regard to housing, that it will only take the shape of an interchange in land; in very, very rare cases it will only mean the appropriation of surplus land held by railway companies on proper terms, and after inquiry; and with regard to town planning, instead of the railway companies having anything to lose they will have much to gain by an impartial inspector and an arbitrator coming from a distance, who take a hill-top and disinterested view of the differences between local authorities and railways, and bring recalcitrant railway authorities into line with what are the broad public interests, both of the railway and pf the community; and it is because railway companies have in some cases secured and improperly held up land which might be used to advantage for housing, and because we believe that they ought to stand in the same position as an ordinary owner of land that we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I am surprised at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member behind me (Mr. M'Arthur) has given no reason for this Amendment. The reason was very clearly stated by my hon. Friend. Take the case of a, railway or a dock company. They come to Parliament; they come before a very expensive tribunal; they have to spend day after day there, fighting their case and provising it. That proceeding has to go on at immense cost. It takes place before a Committee of this House and before a Committee of the House of Lords, and in modern times it is quite common to point to the labours of those Committees and to test them again by divisions on the Third Reading. Therefore, if the railway company have the possession, of land, they have proved to the satisfaction of two Houses of Parliament that they ought to have possession of that land, and that it is in the public interest that they should have possession of it. Surely that title having been so conferred, and been granted after this great expenditure and after onerous proof that such land so acquired in the public interest, railway companies, dock companies, and water companies ought not to be deprived of it unless by an authority of equal weight and dignity. The proposal here is that the ipse dixit of the Local Government Board

  87
  shall be sufficient to override the powers which have been conferred for the public interest by Parliament itself. Surely that argument, which was perfectly clearly put by my hon. Friend, has not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman at all. What reason is there that the Local Government should have power to undo the work of Parliament, and to dispossess people of property which Parliament in the public interest decided that they should possess? The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to me to appreciate the force of the Amendment which he has put down at the end of page 47: "Provided that where the scheme contains provisions suspending any enactment contained in a public general Act the scheme shall not come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than 40 days during the session of Parliament," and so on. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is just and. right with regard to the suspension of any public Act it is necessary to go very little further, and to say that when there is a question of compulsory acquisition of the land obtained under a private Act a similar provision should apply? The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be based on the principle that, notwithstanding anything that Parliament has done, notwithstanding any title, however granted for any public purpose, the local Government Board is a sufficient authority to override it without compensation. I dissent from that, and I shall certainly support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
  Colonel A. R. LOCKWOOD: In reference to this Amendment, railway companies, or water companies, or canal companies, simply ask an ordinary act of what they believe to be justice. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton) has pointed out with great force that these companies should not have taken from them, for the purposes of this Measure, land which they obtained under the authority of Parliament. The President of the Local Government Board complains that we hold up land which ought to be applied for these purposes. Even he, who knows a great deal, cannot know as much as the railway companies, is dealing with their own private affairs. His knowledge is wonderful; his activity is increasing, but even he cannot say he knows what land will be required by particular railway companies or particular water companies, or
  88
  what land purchased by them that is now lying derelict may be extremely useful and absolutely vital for the purposes of the line contiguous which might not be wanted now but which will be in the future, and which certainly would not have been bought unless there was some object in getting it, that object being to provide for future requirements. This question is even more important to water companies, perhaps, than to railway companies, because if we take great storage reservoirs like those which have been built for the East London Water Works, the land on which they are was bought in the old days by the companies, and more land would have been bought if it could have been obtained, and it was not brought into use for many years, but eventually it proved absolutely necessary. In a similar way, land bought for railways, though it may not be required at present, may later on be absolutely necessary either for goods traffic or for different purposes from those for which it was originally bought. Railway companies are always anxious to build cottages for men on the line, so that they shall be handy for their own purposes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should hesitate before overriding statutory powers obtained at enormous expense by companies which, after all, have been brought into existence for the public use and for the public convenience. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to give way on this point. If not, I shall be obliged to vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. R. D. HOLT: I should like to dissent from the attitude taken up by the President of the Local Government Board. It really is ridiculous that a Government Department should take upon themselves to hold that land which Parliament declares should be acquired for A should be summarily transferred to B. That is the reason why I think land belonging to the railway companies, dock authorities, canals, etc., should be treated differently. It is not because it belongs to certain persons, but because the people who own that land have received it as a result of the direct authority of Parliament, which puts them in a totally different position from other people. The only reason for taking this land from them is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it should be acquired for public purposes, because the Local Government Board think that some other public purposes are more important than the public purposes for which Parliament sanctioned the requisition. That is the proposition clearly advanced by the

  89
  President of the Local Government Board. According to the Bill before the House, the judge of the more important purposes is the President of the Local Government Board. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Small Holdings Act, which was put forward as the precedent of this particular measure of obtaining land compulsorily. Clause 41 of the Small Holdings Act says that no land is to be acquired which has been acquired by a corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, or is the site of an ancient monument, and so on. If he relies so largely on precedent in one case, let him stick to the same precedent to the bitter end. I observe that he has under some sort of pressure protected archæological remains and ancient monuments. Why not then go to the very end and give the same protection to the statutory company?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give way to the pressure of the directors of railway companies and water companies that they should have the right to get large portions of land in certain localities for their purposes, and then that the State should not have any power whatever to compel them, to house their people decently. If they will not do it themselves, then the local authority or Local Government Board should have power to do it for them, and even take surplus lands for that purpose. I think that the position of the right hon. Gentleman is the correct one in the public interest, and I shall support it on a Division.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 547.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, P. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnard, E. B.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, E.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  C. M'Arthur and Col. Lockwood.

  NOES.

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hodge, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jowett, F.W.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ginnell, L.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamont, Norman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R.R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grayson, Abert Victor

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lundon, T.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cox, Harold

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Crean, Eugene

  Hart-Davies, T.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Crooks, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Davies, Timothy (Fuham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Massie, J.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Reddy, M.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rees, J. D.

  Tomkinson, James

  Morrell, Philip

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morse, L. L.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robertson Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waring, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Winfrey, R.

  Paul, Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Young, Samuel

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  And, it being after Half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 15th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock this day, and on any
  Amendment thereto, moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 548.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Massie, J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Beale, W. P.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gulland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Berridge, T.H.D.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, A. G. C. Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Muldoon, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myer, Horatio

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cox, Harold

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Paul, Herbert

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Crosfield, A.H.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pearson, W.H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickers gill, Edward Hare

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Duffy, William J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Reddy, M.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rees, J. D.

  Evans, Sir S.T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton, W.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lundon, T.

  Robinson, S.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Rowlands, J.

  Tennant; Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

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

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Winfrey, R.

  Seely, Colonel

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Vivian, Henry

  Young, Samuel

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Waring, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  NOES.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Foster, P. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  F. Banbury and Mr. A. Fell.

  Clause 3, dealing with "Loans by Public Works Loans Commissioners to local Authorities," agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Loans by Public Works Loans Commissioners to Public Utility Societies.)
  (1) Where a lean is made by the Public Works Loans Commissioners under Section sixty-seven, Sub-section two (d),of the principal Act, to a public utility society, the words "two-thirds" shall be substituted for the words "one moiety."
  (2) For the purposes of this Section a public utility society means a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, or any amendment thereof, and the rules whereof shall provide for the limitation of dividend or in-
  terest on the capital of the society to an average rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "and" ["and the rules whereof"].—[Mr. Burns.]
  Leave out the words "shall provide for the limitation of dividend or interest on the capital of the society to an average rate not," and insert the words, "prohibit the payment of any interest or dividend at a rate."—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 27.

  Division No. 549.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cox, Harold

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beale, W.P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bright, J. A.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fell, Arthur

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Henderson, J. McD.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Cave, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Holden. Sir E. Hopkinson

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Foster, P. S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seely, Colonel

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jackson, R. S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Stanier, Beville

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  O'Conner, John (Kildare, N.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Oonnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Paul, Herbert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tomkinson, James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffold, Eye)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Vivian, Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Waring, Walter

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Padford, G. H

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rees; J. D.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mark, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Meehan,Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Winfrey, R.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  Young, Samuel

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Morse, L. L.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Reddy, M.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hodge, John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hudson, Walter

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Wardie, George J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, T.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  W. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. F. Richards.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Question put, "That Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 32.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Extension of Section 75 of the Principal Act.)
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 550.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cox, Harold

  Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crooks, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barnes, G.N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harvey, A.G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hodge, John

  Brooke, Stopford

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hogan, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Hudson, Walter

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Cleland, J.W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Jackson, R. S.

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Joyce, Michael

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Glover, Thomas

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Paul, Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lundon, T.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rees, J. D

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Wardie, George J.

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waring, Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, S.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  White, Sir Luke(York, E. R.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, Henry (York, W. R.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Muldoon, John

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Winfrey, R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Young, Samuel

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Seely, Colonel

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lookwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson, W. Michell-(Lanark)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Carlile and Mr. P. S. Foster.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Division No. 551.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hodge, John

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barnard, E B.

  Hogan, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Barnes, G.N.

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Rees, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Bright, J. A.

  Idris, T.H. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Seely, Colonel

  Clough, William

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lundon, T.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cox, Harold

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Tomkinson, James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Massie, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Verney, F. W.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Vivian, Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Wardie, George J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Morse, L. L.

  Waring, Walter

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Myer, Horatio

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Winfrey, R.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young, Samuel

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gulland, John W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paul, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Robert Cecil and Mr. Staveley-Hill.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Power of County Council to Exercise Powers of Rural District Council under Part III.)
  (1) Where the council of a county are of opinion that for any reason it is expedient that the council should exercise, as respects any rural district in the county, any of the powers of a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act, the council, after giving notice to the council of the district of their intention to do so, may apply to the Local Government Board for an order conferring such powers on them.
  (2) Upon such an application being made the Board may make an order conferring on the county council as respects the rural district the powers of a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act, and thereupon the provisions of the Housing Acts (including those enabling the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend, and fixing the terms for which money may be lent and borrowed) shall apply as if the council were a local authority under Part III. of the principal Act: Provided that
  98
  the expenses incurred by the county council under any such order shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.
  (3) Where, under any such order, the county council have executed any works in a rural district they may transfer the works to the council of that district on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between them.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after "rural district" ["as respects the rural district the powers of"], to insert the words "all or any of."
  After "Acts" ["Housing Acts"], to insert the words "relating to those powers." —[Mr. Burns.]
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Condition as to Keeping Houses Let to Persons of the Working Classes in Repair.)
  (1) The last foregoing Section shall as respects contracts to which that Section
  100
  applies take effect as if the condition implied by that Section included an undertaking that the house shall, during the holding, be kept by the landlord in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
  (2)If it appears to the local authority within the meaning of Part II. of the principal Act that the undertaking implied by virtue of this Section is not complied with in the case of any house to which it applies, the authority shall, if a closing order is not made with respect to the house, by written notice require the landlord, within a reasonable time, not being less than fourteen days, specified in the notice, to execute such works as the authority may specify in the notice as being necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
  (3) If the notice is not complied with the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice, do the work required to be done and recover the expenses incurred by them in so doing from the landlord as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, or, if they think fit, the authority may by order declare any such expenses to be payable by annual instalments within a period not exceeding that of the duration of the holding under the contract, with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per cent, per annum until the whole amount is paid, and any such instalments or interest or any part thereof may be recovered from the landlord as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
  (4) A landlord may appeal to the Local Government Board against any notice requiring him to execute works under this Section, and against any demand for the recovery of expenses from him under this Section of order made with respect to those expenses under this Section by the
  authority, by giving notice of appeal to the Board within fourteen days after the notice is received, or the demand or order is made, as the case may be, and no proceedings shall be taken in respect of such notice requiring works, order or demand, whilst the appeal is pending.
  (5) In this Section, the expression "landlord" means any person who lets the house under any contract referred to in this Section, and includes his successors in title, and the expression "house" includes part of a house.
  Sections forty-nine and fifty of the principal Act as amended by Section thirteen of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903 (which relate to the service of notices and the description of owner in proceedings), shall apply for the purposes of this Section, with the substitution, where required, of the landlord for the owner of a dwelling-house.
  (6)Any remedy given by this Section for non-compliance with the undertaking implied by virtue of this Section, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available to the tenant against the landlord, either at common law or otherwise.
  Amendment made: To leave out the words, in Sub-section (3), "duration of the holding under the contract," and insert "interest of the landlord in the house nor in any case five years."—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 552.]

  AYES.

  [8.12 p.m.

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

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Cox, Harold

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crooks, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvill

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bright, J. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hodge, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hogan, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Clough, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Hudson, Walter

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lamont, Norman

  Paul, Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, T.

  Pickers gill, Edward Hare

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Vivian, Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wardle, George J.

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Waring, Walter

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Morrell, Philip

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Young, Samuel

  Morse, L. L

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Muldoon, John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Myer, Horatio

  Seely, Colonel

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, P. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur Charles

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fletcher, J S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Gibbs.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amendment of Procedure, for Closing Orders and Demolition Orders.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Duty of Local Authority as to Closing of Dwelling-house Unfit for Human Habitation.)
  (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of Part II. of the principal Act to cause to be made from time to time inspection of their district, with a view to ascertain whether any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, and, if on the representation of the medical officer of health, or of any officer of the authority, or information given, any dwelling-house appears to them to be in such a state, to make an order prohibiting the use of the dwelling-house for human habitation (in this Act referred to as a closing order) until in the judgment of the local authority the dwelling-house is rendered fit for that purpose.
  (2) Notice of a closing order shall be forthwith served on every owner of the dwelling-house in respect of which it is made, and any owner aggrieved by the order may appeal to the Local Government Board by giving notice of appeal to the Board within fourteen days after the order is served upon him.
  (3)Where a closing order has become operative, the local authority shall serve notice of the order on every occupying tenant of the dwelling-house in respect of which the order is made, and within such period as is specified in the notice, not being less than seven days after the ser vice of the notice, the order shall be obeyed by him, and he and his family shall cease to inhabit the dwelling-house, and in default he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues.
  (4)The local authority may make to every such tenant such reasonable allow-

  105
  ance on account of his expense in removing as may be determined by the local authority with the consent of the owner of the dwelling-house, or if the owner of the dwelling-house fails to consent to the sum determined by the local authority, as may be fixed by a court of summary jurisdiction, and the amount of the said allowance shall be recoverable by the local authority from the owner of the dwelling-house as a civil debt in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
  (5) The local authority shall determine any closing order made by them if they are satisfied that the dwelling-house in respect of which it has been made has been rendered fit for human habitation.
  If on the application of any owner of a dwelling-house, the local authority refuse to determine a closing order, the owner may appeal to the Local Government Board by giving notice of appeal to the Board within fourteen days after the application is refused.
  (6)Where an appeal is made to the Local Government Board under this Section the Local Government Board shall not dismiss the appeal without having first held a public local inquiry.
  (7) A room habitually used as a sleeping place, the surface of the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, if the room either—

  (a) is not sufficiently protected against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation; or

  (b) is not sufficiently ventilated; or

  (c) is not in every part thereof at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling; or
  (d) is not, to the extent of one foot at least in height, above the level of the surface of the part of the street ad-joining or nearest to the room; or
  (e)has not one or more windows opening directly into the external air, with a total area clear of the sash frames equal to at least one-tenth of the floor area of the room, and so constructed that one-half at least of each window of the room can be opened, the opening in each case extending to the top of the window; or
  (f) is not provided along the entire frontage thereof with an open area properly paved, at least four feet wide in every part thereof: Provided that in the area there may be placed steps necessary for access to the room, and over and across the area there may be steps necessary for access to any buildings above the room, if the steps are so placed in each case as not to be over or across any external window.
  This Sub-section shall not come into operation until the first day of July nineteen hundred and ten.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (7), after the word "be" ["of this Section be deemed to be"], to insert the words "a dwelling-house."—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 31.

  Division No. 553.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cox, Harold

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crean, Eugene

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crooks, William

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Beale, W. P.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bright, J. A.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hodge, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hogan, Michael

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Hudson, Walter

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glendinning, R, G.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Laid law, Robert

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Paul, Herbert

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Lundon, T.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Vivian, Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Waring, Walter

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Winfrey, R.

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T M'Kinnon

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Young, Samuel

  Muldoon, John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Seely, Colonel

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Foster, P. S.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Lambton and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Question put, "That Clauses 17 to 29, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 31.

  Division No. 554.]

  AYES.

  [8.28 p.m.

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

  Crooks, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthvr Tydvil)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hodge, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hudson, Walter

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jenkins, J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ffrench, Peter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamont, Norman

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cox, Harold

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Pickers gill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Radford, G. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Massie, J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tomkinson, James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rees J. D.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Vivian, Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robinson, S.

  Waring, Walter

  Morse, L. L.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Muldoon, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Young, Samuel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Paul, Herbert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson. Wm G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Foster, P. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  J. S. Fletcher and Mr. Stanier.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Quinquennial Survey and Register

  CLAUSE 30.—(Quinquennial Survey and Register.
  (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of this Section to cause to be made in every parish within the county or district an inspecton and survey of every dwelling-house, to which the limitation as respects rateable value of Section fourteen of this Act applies, and to cause to be registered in a book or register, in a form to be prescribed by the Local Government Board, particulars concerning every such dwelling-house, including—

  (a) situation and address;

  (b) rated occupier;

  (c) beneficial owner;

  (d) freeholder;

  (e) number and description of rooms and offices in each house;

  (f) number of occupants, sex, and approximate age at date of survey;

  (g) state of repair of the dwelling;

  (h) sanitary condition of the dwelling;

  (i) water supply;

  (j) rateable value; and

  110

  (k) if let in lodgings, number of rooms and of lodgers, distinguishing sex and families.

  (2) The first survey and register shall be commenced within twelve months and shall be completed within five years after the passing of this Act, and a new survey shall be made and the register revised within every five years thereafter; and a copy of such register in respect of every parish within the county or district shall be deposited with the clerk of the council and shall be open to inspection within reasonable hours by any ratepayer within the county or district.
  (3)—(a) For the purpose of facilitating the survey and collection of the necessary particulars for the register, forms of return to be approved by the Local Government Board shall be served upon every owner or reputed owner requiring him to make such statement or return within one month from date of service as a person is required to make under the Income Tax Acts, and the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
  (b) Such form of return shall include the particulars set out in Sub-section one of this Section, and shall contain a declaration to be made by the owner or his agent that

  111
  the dwelling for which rent is being paid and received is reasonably fit for human habitation.
  (4) All notices and forms of return under this Section shall be in writing or print, or partly in writing and partly in print; and shall be sufficiently authenticated if bearing the signature in facsimile of the clerk to the local authority; and shall be served—

  (i) by delivery of the same personally to the person required to be served, or if such person is absent abroad or cannot be found, to his agent, or, if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the premises; or

  (ii) by leaving the same at the usual or last-known place of abode of such person as aforesaid; or

  (iii) by post, by a prepaid letter, addressed to the usual or last-known place of abode of such person;

  and if sent by post shall be deemed to have been served and received respectively at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving such service or sending it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice or form of return was properly addressed and prepaid and put into the post.
  (5) If any person wilfully refuses or neglects to make any return lawfully required under this Act within the time limited by this Act in that behalf, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
  If any person wilfully makes or causes to be made a false return or declaration he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.
  If the occupier of any dwelling-house, when requested by or on behalf of the local authority to state the name and address of the owner thereof, refuses or wilfully omits to disclose or wilfully misstates the same, he shall (unless he shows cause to the satisfaction of the court for his refusal) be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
  (6)—(a) For the purpose of carrying out the survey and compilation of the register—

  (i) a county council may make arrangements with the council of any county district, or parish within the county for the exercise by the council of that district or parish, as agents for the county council, of the powers conferred by this Section, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be
  112
  agreed upon, provided always that the county council shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the survey and register;

  (ii) every such council shall afford all reasonable facilities and the assistance of their officers and inspectors to the county council, and it shall be lawful for such officers and inspectors to receive special remuneration for their services from the county council.

  (b) Where the register is compiled under the authority of the county council a copy of so much of it as relates to every parish within each county district shall be de posited with the clerk of the council.
  (7) The expression "local authority" for the purposes of this Section shall mean for the administrative county of London the metropolitan borough councils, for every county borough and urban district having a population exceeding ten thousand according to the last census the council of such borough or district, and elsewhere the county council.
  Mr. CAVEmoved to omit Sub-section 1. The effect of the Sub-section is that, if the Bill passes, every local authority once in every five years must make an inspection and survey of every house in their district up to a certain rateable value, and must make a register containing the result of such inspections and surveys, giving a number of particulars provided for in this Section. There are many hon. Members of this House who have had experience of local government work. Speaking from the experience I have had, I think this Clause is not only useless, but actually mischievous. Let any hon. Member think what actually happens now. At the present time it is the duty of every local authority to make a periodical inspection of the houses in their district. Generally speaking, this is done by a staff of sanitary inspectors and the medical officer. The sanitary inspector, having made an inspection, notes down particulars of every house, and he reports every house not in a proper sanitary state. He probably makes a visit not once in every five years, but probably every week or even every day to certain houses until those particular houses are put into a proper sanitary condition. After having seen that the proper improvements are made, every year afterwards he makes a similar inspection of his district—not going into every house, because common-sense tells him that that is unnecessary—but he makes a proper survey of those houses where it is required. It is now

  113
  proposed in addition that there shall be an inspection and a survey every five years of every one of these smaller houses. The inspection is to be made not in every case by the same officer upon whom the duty is now thrown, but in certain districts it is to be made by another officer altogether, namely, the officer of the county council. Consequently, you have two officers, one the district officer, upon whom devolves the statutory duty of making an inspection of the district from time to time, and the other the county officer, who has to make a survey of all the smaller houses every five years. In the first place, it is mischievous. It tends to divide the responsibility and to suggest to the person responsible that an inspection every five years is enough. In the second place, see how inquisitorial the whole thing is. The larger house is exempt from this particular investigation, but as to the smaller house, the officer has to go from house to house and ascertain all these things, namely, the situation and address, the rated occupier, the beneficial owner, the freeholder, the number and description of rooms and offices in each house, and actually the number of occupants, the sex, and the approximate age at the date of survey. What on earth is the use of all that for sanitary purposes? How can it serve any useful object that the public officer should go once in every five years and inquire the number of rooms, the number of people who live there, what is their sex, and what is their approximate age? Everyone knows that in these small houses the occupants change very frequently, and to have a register made of them giving the sex and the number of people and the other particulars asked for is of no use to enable the local authorities to perform its duty. This will involve a good deal of inquisition which people will very properly and naturally resent, more particularly when it is applied only to a certain class of house, and not to all the houses in the district. Apart from the inconvenience and annoyance, look at the expense. Take first the expense to individuals. It means a good deal of expense to them. A return is to be made by every owner, and it is pretty clear, as I read the Bill, that the owner includes a mortgagee. Take the case of a land society or a building society. The chairman of one of these societies wrote to me on the subject, pointing out that they had 7,562 properties, many of them on mortgage; and he asked if they would have to make a return in respect of all those houses. If so, he said
  114
  they would require an army of inspectors. He thought the scheme quite unworkable. I give it as one instance of the effect of these proposals that the mortgagee of a house—who is not in possession, who if he inquires the ages and the sex of the occupants, will, very properly, be told to mind his own business—is required to make a return giving all these details; and, if he does not do so, he is liable to a penalty. Then, see the expense and trouble to which the authority itself will be put. I say, without fear of contradiction, that anybody who knows the facts will agree with me when I say that this inspection could not be made by the existing officers of local authorities. It seems to me that somebody will have to be employed, and probably specially appointed, to do this special work, and consequently a good deal of extra expense will be thrown upon the authorities concerned. I am speaking to hon. Members who are well acquainted with these things, and, therefore, I do not need to dwell very long on this point. I do, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, after all this annoyance has been incurred, and when all this expense has been defrayed, what is the real use of the register which is obtained in this way? What use will it really be? It will not prevent the authority from having to make other and more frequent inspections; it will not interfere in the least with their duty to prosecute where there is want of sanitation. It will simply give them a register which will be pretty nearly waste paper; it will cause a good deal of annoyance and cost a good deal of money, and will be of no practical use to local authorities in carrying out their duty. I have only heard one argument in favour of this Clause. It is that this is done in Paris. I do not think it is, and I should like hon. Members to indicate to the Committee how they say the Parisian system is similar to this. In the second place, I should certainly be surprised if anybody holds out Paris as an example for our legislation in housing matters. Those hon. Members may know something of the better part of Paris, but some of us know something of the worst part. A great many of the tenement houses, in fact, are kept in the worst possible condition, full in some cases of disease and containing all the elements of crime. I do not say that of Paris as a whole, but I should be very sorry to see our cities compare in any way with Paris. I think they are better governed than most of the districts in that great city. I do not forget to take account

  115
  of the fact that there is in Paris a body of men who give with great success a good deal of time and energy to the government of Paris, but I think our work in England compares favourably in housing with that done in Paris. I cannot help thinking this Clause is not the offspring of the brain of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Burns). But alter all, he is responsible. It is his Bill, and this is his Clause until he shows otherwise, and we must look to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a decided lead as to the line it should take. I hope the Committee will not insist upon including the Clause in the Bill. I think it is a serious flaw on the Bill as a whole.
  Sir F. S. POWELL: This Clause is not like the clause to which I ventured to refer some time ago, where an exceptionally large Standing Committee passed the Clause unanimously. There was in this case a great division of opinion. The voting was 20 in favour of the clause and 17 against it, and amongst the 17 was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I certainly hope, although I have no information on which to base that hope, that he is of the same mind as he was then, and that he will urge the Committee to delete the Clause. I find against the Clause an authority of great knowledge, great experience and great weight, namely, the Liverpool Corporation. At a meeting some few weeks ago they discussed this Clause, and by a strong vote opposed it. The Clause will, I am sure, cause great expense. There is at present in our great towns a system of inspection, not a quinquennial one as is mentioned here, but an inspection which is continually at work. It is, in fact, if we may borrow a phrase from the language of the Chartered Accountants, a kind of continuous audit. We know the great necessity for care when we are dealing with sanitary matters. We know the need there is that inspectors should be continually going round, that they should be continually making reports and causing action to be taken on the faith of those reports. What real benefit is to be gained by a quinquennial census as compared with this examination and inspection and report, which is going on everywhere day after day? I believe it will render very little service to the cause of public health, and that it will certainly cause very great expense. You have your continual inspec-
  116
  tion, which answers every purpose. Why have a secondary and an inferior inspection every five years? I am quite sure it will cause great annoyance and very considerable vexation.
  When we come to look at the details, it seems to me they are of such a character that it is quite unnecessary to have a return of them every five years. There is to be an account of occupiers. We have all those in the documents which are at present at the command of the Poor Law authority or of the corporation or of the local council, as the case may be. Then there is to be a description of the rooms. Those rooms vary from time to time. A room may be in one condition in the year 1909 and in another condition in the year 1914. This inspection which is to be made every five years is really useless, because the reports cannot at any given moment be up to date, and unless these reports are brought up to date I believe very little public benefit will be derived there from. Then some of the subjects on which reports, are to be made appear to me to be almost in the nature of matters of opinion. There is the state of buildings. My remark of a moment ago as to the lapse of time certainly applies to the state of repair. If a house is in good repair in 1909, are we quite sure it will be in good repair in 1914? A report made now is comparatively useless. Then comes the-sanitary condition of dwellings. The sanitary condition of dwellings varies almost from hour to hour. The same defect would apply to making a sewer or to sanitary arrangements. I do not think it is sufficient to say that it will be useless. It will be mischievous and even misleading. I really believe that instead of being a help and guidance it will be misleading and deceiving. We have been told that every Englishman's house is his fortress. You may carry that principle too far, but if you are continually investigating and annoying the occupants, in the name of this Act, I cannot see how you can expect friendly concessions from any side. I think the adoption will not be to the advantage of any salutary movement. On the contrary, it leads to vagueness, hindrance, impediment, and mischief.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I must say I do not believe in the Section at all in any shape or form. I want to know with regard to this provision how you are going to carry it out? What right have you to trouble about beneficial owners? We have heard some-

  117
  thing too about the freeholder, but, after all, what does the tenant know about the freeholder, and why should he be put under a penalty of £5 to give information on that point? He surely has enough to do to manage his own business, and he cannot have time to inquire as to who is the owner of the property. I take it I shall be supporting the Government if I vote against this proposal. There is another thing which ought to be called attention to and ought to be considered. At the present moment, not only Imperial taxes, but local rates, are going up everywhere by leaps and bounds, and we have already quite an army of inspectors, of all sorts and conditions, costing a large amount of money. Some people think they are not worth the money, because it very often happens that, for the sake of getting an increase of salary, these officials actually find work, in order to show that they have something to do. Otherwise, they would not be able to ask for the increase of salary. It is admitted, and it cannot be denied, that the examination is being efficiently done all over the country now, and why we want to appoint a lot of other officials, for the purpose of doing work which is already done and making a lot of unnecessary inquiries, I cannot understand. What real good can it do in regard to an insanitary house to know who is the free holder, or the beneficial owner, and a lot of other things in regard to the particulars which are required? It does no good whatever, and the economical path in the administration of rates and Imperial taxes seems to be forgotten altogether. Money is voted freely, I suppose on the ground that it does not matter how much money is spent, as long as somebody can be found to pay, but it is altogether wrong and is not doing any good to the country generally, either from the sanitary or any other point of view. I do not want to stop reform in any shape whatever, and I might have been satisfied with the Amendment of this Clause, but that I think it is a bad Clause altogether, and ought not to be agreed to by this Committee.
  Mr. A. H. SCOTT: I rise to oppose this Clause on behalf of the great municipalities of this country. They certainly show no hesitation in their opposition to this Clause, and they have two reasons against it: One is, that they believe it to be absolutely useless; and the second is, that the cost will fall upon them. We in this
  118
  House are returned on a list of voters, and; it is not considered desirable to go out on: an old register, and our register is revised every 12 months. There are many constituencies in this country that change one-third of their register in the 12 months, and yet the register of houses and the occupants of those houses, on a particular day, is to stand under the Bill for five years and is to be, it is thought, a useful book of reference in regard to the health and the sanitary conditions of that particular locality. I should have thought that in adopting the principle of a foreign country, those responsible for introducing this Clause, would have had the courage of their convictions and gone in, not only for workmen's dwellings, and for houses of a certain rent, but would have demanded a register of all houses in the locality. They have not done so, and yet it is known, certainly in some of our agricultural districts, that some of the large houses are the most insanitary and have the worst conveniences. Also, in our large towns, by the alteration of certain neighbourhoods, we have found that some of the large houses have become the worst and require the closest possible inspection, yet it is those houses, located in districts that have changed entirely in regard to their respectability—it is those houses which require the greatest possible attention, that are not under the Bill, and under these Clauses, no supervision is given to them, in any shape or form. I was interested in a pamphlet put into my hands this evening from those responsible for this Clause, in which they draw attention to and compare the Acts for the inspection of factories with the inspection of homes. They point out that we insist upon providing air space in factories, and ask why do not we do it in the homes? That is very sound, and I for one would not rise in my place in this House to object to it if they said they would form a body of inspectors and make them supervise the homes in this country; but they do nothing of the kind. They inflict upon municipalities this inspection, and that is one of the reasons why I so strongly object to it, and they do not provide the necessary funds. You will not find the municipalities object so strongly as they do to these continual measures being passed in this House, and not a single penny being provided for the working of them, if means are provided. It is the easiest thing in the world to point out how very beneficial many of the things are which have been done in this Parliament, by means of medical inspection and

  119
  in other ways, when not a single penny has been found for carrying them out. There is the feeding of the children, very essential, very good, but no money found for it from Imperial funds, and yet it is an Imperial service, and not local work. What you are doing by this Clause is, you are asking for certain inspections to be made, and there is not a single word in the whole of the Bill to provide money to carry on the work. If those people are in earnest with reference to this Clause, let them boldly come forward and suggest that the nation itself should take a register in the towns and that it should pay its own inspectors and provide the means of doing it.
  There are other reasons which enter into this necessary inspection in foreign countries, and let us be thankful for it, they do not obtain in this. We have not yet got conscription. When we have it it may be desirable that you should have recorded the name and the age of everybody living in the premises. That is one of the reasons which actuates foreign countries in having this close inspection, but it does not lead to any better results. The health of these foreign towns is not better, and they have not shown the same reduction in their death rate as has been shown in some of the best municipalities in our own country, and that decrease of death rate has arisen largely from the active and energetic work done by the medical officers of the local authority, using to the best the Acts of Parliament they have now. When you get your register what is the effect? There is nothing in this Bill which says that when you find an owner who is a member of your city council who is responsible for insanitary dwellings then he must be disqualified from attending; there is nothing in this Bill that gives power to a local authority, or instructs the local authority that they should take action under any information which may be conveyed to them. The reason given for this Bill is that there are certain localities and certain councils which have been lax in their administration. What do you do under this Clause to insist upon their being geared up and doing their work any better? If there had been some suggestion that you should do something with certain authorities which are backward in their inspection there might be some reason to support it, but the mere fact of asking them to compile a register and giving no authority that they should make use of a
  120
  register when they have got it is absolutely useless. There is one part of the Clause in which they have asked the county council to make use of the servants of the small local authorities, that is, that the servant of the small authorities has got to become the servant of two masters. He may be serving on Monday or Tuesday the county council, and the rest of the week he is serving the local authority, or they may want him on certain days when the smaller authorities require his services. But is it not impossible that any of these inspectors appointed by one authority should become the servant of another? I can only suppose this has been inserted because they feared that by each authority being made responsible for this it would lead to a very heavy cost on the authority, and this is what they call doing it economically. But whatever you do in this way you are going to utilise the men who have accomplished great work, as the reduction of the death rate in all the great municipalities shows. You are asking that they in the future shall spend their time in looking after good houses when they would be far better employed in visiting and demolishing the bad houses in that town.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am extremely glad for many reasons that we are going to have this Debate on the whole Clause, because I regard this as one of the principal clauses in this Bill, and I am very glad that we have the objections to it stated openly. The objections which have been raised fall principally under three heads. First of all, there is the question of the expense; then we are told the work is unnecessary, because it is done already; and, lastly, we are told it is useless. It is perfectly true that at present there is a duty upon all local authorities to inspect the whole of their district. There has been a duty cast upon them by the Act of 1890: "It shall be the duty of every local authority to cause to be made from time to time inspection of their district, with a view to ascertaining whether any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dangerous," and so on.
  We who support this Clause say that either that inspection is made now, in which case the extra expense which is so much complained of will not be incurred, or, if it is not made, then this Clause will in itself be the best means of seeing that in future the inspection is carried out. After all, we are only asking that a duty which was laid upon local authorities by Parliament 20 years ago should be carried out in a businesslike and methodical

  121
  manner. We hear a great deal about the inquisitorial nature of the inquiry which is going to be made, but every single argument that is being raised now against the inquisitorial character of this Clause was raised against the factory legislation introduced under the influence of Lord Shaftesbury. If it is important that a man should carry on his work in a healthy factory it is equally important that his wife and children should be living in rooms which are fit to live in, and, if they are not, the local authority and everyone who cares to inquire into the matter should be made aware of the fact. The arguments in favour of this Clause are infinitely stronger than any argument in favour of factory legislation, for the simple reason that in this Clause we are asking for help for those who are by the very nature of the case unable to help themselves. Take the case of a poor man living in a rural district, a man who does not dare to make complaints to his landlord or the agent who collects his rent. He cannot give up his house and take another, because there may be no other in the village, and he cannot leave his work, and yet he sees, day by day, his children falling into consumption and his wife becoming subject to rheumatism, and sees every sort of evil come into his family simply because he cannot get a decent house to live in. Are we, who know that these things exist under the present law, to say that because hon. Members think that these demands are inquisitorial we are not to have a reasonable inspection of the houses in which our working classes live?
  Then we are told by many Members that they would not mind if it applied to the whole district. They say, "Why only inspect working-class houses in this way? This is an instance of class legislation." Personally I should not object at all to see the thing extended so as to include every house in the district, but if you are, on the ground of economy or what not, to make a distinction, surely it must be particularly in favour of the houses of those who cannot afford to build houses for themselves that we should ask that local authorities should exercise these powers. Then we are told that a great deal of the information asked for will not be required. Well and good. I am perfectly prepared, if my right hon. Friend says he does not want to know the name, we will say, of a freeholder, to assent to any reasonable Amendment; but what we are asked now to do is to reject the whole Clause, and we say
  122
  if you do that you will be rejecting what is in many respects, certainly as regards rural districts, the most valuable and practical Clause in the Bill. We have been told that the register which is kept in Paris now is extremely expensive. It is a more elaborate register than we are asking for in this Bill, and so far from its being useless, it has been in force for 15 years; and the Paris municipality are now engaged in a great scheme of slum destruction and the reconstruction of certain parts of their area based upon the results of the register. It may be quite true that some parts of Paris are not very healthy or well managed, but at the same time Paris is in many ways a well-managed city, and, considering the economical nature of the French, I do not think they would have continued for 15 years making a register of houses in this way if they found the results were not worth the money spent upon the work. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the cost"] I have not the figures here. An hon. Member informs me that it is £2,500. We are told that the making of this register will be useless and that it will be a waste of time. For some time I have spent a considerable part of my time in connection with a small association called the Rural Housing Association, which makes it its duty to try to find out cases of bad housing and to bring them before the local authorities where inspection had not been made. Our experience has been that the mere publicity in cases of this sort has been in most cases sufficient to get a remedy effected. Once it became known that certain cottages were in a state unfit for human habitation, as a great many unfortunately now are, the local authorities took means to have the matter put right. In that association we act under great disadvantages, because being a private association it is difficult for us to get information. We are always liable to have it said that we are acting from personal or prejudiced motives, or that our information is not trustworthy. I can show that in a great many villages we have brought about very large improvements. Therefore, I think it is quite useless to say that the publicity which this register will ensure will not be of any use in bringing about a better state of things in our villages. On the contrary, I believe there is nothing which is more calculated to improve housing conditions than by making known publicly what is the condition of housing in many of our towns and villages.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Morrell) has taken very considerable interest in this matter for some time, and I am sure his speech, whether we agree with it or not, is one of great sincerity. But he begged the whole question. The assumption which underlay the whole of his speech was that this inspection was absolutely necessary because the state of things existing was so bad as to show that the work in the past has been disgracefully carried out throughout the country. I do not believe that statement can be corroborated. There are undoubtedly isolated instances where the state of things is bad. I hope they are becoming fewer every day, because the instinct for improved dwellings is as strong as the instinct for better conditions in other matters. It is no use asking the question whether we wish to see good housing. Everybody wants to see that. But we want to see it brought about without unnecessary red tape and machinery. The hon. Member asked why this should be called inquisitorial. One suggestion is that the inspector should walk into a lady's bedroom and find out how many are occupying that bedroom, and having found that out the inspector is to find out the approximate age of the lady.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: The Bill does not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman before interrupting me should have read what the Clause says. Paragraph (f) says that the register is to show the "number of occupants, sex, and approximate age at date of survey."
  Mr. J. WARD: What I suggested was that it is not necessary that the inspector should enter the private bedrooms of the females of a house to get this information. That is what I say is not in the Bill.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: If the hon. Member suggests that certain things might be done in a certain way, I think I am perfectly justified in pointing out what this may lead to. We have heard about slum destruction in Paris. Is Paris the only city where slums are being destroyed and where a great work is being done to improve the condition of the working classes? I maintain that by such a system as is here proposed you are interfering largely with the good work that is being done now. I believe a majority of, if not all, the medical officers of the country have careful records of the state of the property within their areas, and the fact that we insist on this
  124
  survey being made will interfere with the nature of their inspection in those parts which most require inspection. If there is one reason more than another why I support this Clause, it is the strong protection it will give to the larger as against the smaller owners of property. It will be of the greatest assistance to the larger owners to have a register of this sort, for in many cases it will show where the bad and where the good houses are. It is in the smaller class of property that a man speculates. He may have a few cottages, and not be prepared to spend money on them. He simply treats the whole thing as an investment. These are the places where inspection is wanted. If I were to look at this from a selfish point of view I should welcome the Clause. The sanitary inspector is the greatest friend the good conscientious landlord can possibly have. Very often he points out defects which the landlord would not hear of from his own tenants, who are afraid to cause trouble by giving information on those points. It seems to me that the cost which will be involved in this is unnecessary, and that the officialism will upset the good work which is being done at present by the medical officers. That will outweigh altogether the advantages we will get out of it. Rural district councils, urban district councils, and the County Councils Association are all hostile to this Clause, and they have passed resolutions to that effect. I think that before this House sanctions a system which will cause great expense and annoyance to the people, and which will considerably clog the wheels of reform in a great many of our districts, it should pause to see whether the Clause is necessary or not.
  Mr. F. E. ROGERS: I would like to say a few words upon this Clause from the point of view of one who supported it in Committee. I have done so owing to the fact that I have been convinced by actual practice that a clause of this kind is one of the most valuable that could be introduced. We should not forget that this Clause was strongly recommended by the Select Committee on Housing, that it was very strongly urged by the Royal Commission on Labour, over which the Duke of Devonshire presided, and that it has, I believe, the almost unanimous approval of every private association and every private individual who has studied the housing question and taken part in the work of pressing it upon the attention of this House. All of us, I am sure, will wish every pos-

  125
  sible success to this Bill, and we shall hope that under it a number of houses will be erected by municipal authorities where they are badly wanted. But, even under the very best conditions, it is quite useless to suppose that the bulk of the population of this country, at any rate for many generations to come, will live in anything but privately owned houses. For my part I regard the improvement of the standard of existing dwelling-houses is quite as important, if not more important, than the provision of new houses. Take the ordinary country village or town, and you may find a small housing scheme of 10 or 12 houses owned by the local authority, but the great majority of the people will live in houses owned by private individuals. What I desire to say is that the standard of these private houses should be made as high as it possibly can be. A great deal of the argument about this Clause has been based on the assumption that inspection is thorough and systematic now, and does not require improvement. Like the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of this Clause, I have been myself a member of various local governing authorities, and I can only say that in my experience sanitary administration and inspection are neither systematic nor thorough. The great fault they possess is that they are spasmodic in their character. A man does not go to a village determined to make a sanitary inspection of that village. He goes into one house in that village. In nine cases out of ten it is because a neighbour has made a complaint. If this man went as a matter of course and took all the houses in a village below a certain rateable value, if you like, or if, where he thought something was wrong, he went into all of them and found out what was wrong, then perhaps you would not have any necessity for a clause of that kind. But under present circumstances that is not done; and I do contend that the effect of a clause like this, insuring a systematic house-to-house inspection and a register, will give a better and more regular inspection than you get at present.
  As everybody knows, there are a number of cases in which people living in small houses—poor people—do not like to complain; and unless when some sanitary nuisance gets to the knowledge of the inspector, he does not come there, and he is not expected to find out what is the matter. I have heard it said in this Debate that the only effect of this inspection will be that you will have a mass of statistics,
  126
  and that they will be no good to you afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend who cheers that statement evidently thinks that a register is a book which, when it is made, is put upon a shelf in the office and left there and never taken down again. I would like to give my experience in this matter. In the county in which I have done some local government work there are 32 urban and rural districts. Owing to the great influence of our county medical officer of health—an officer whose employment I am glad to say has been made compulsory by this Bill—in eight of the 32 urban and rural districts they are now engaged gradually in making this house-to-house inspection, and registering the result of that inspection, and in one case the register is complete in every particular. I had the pleasure of showing that register to the President of the Local Government Board last year, and of showing it to the Committee who considered this Bill, and I can only regret that my right hon. Friend was not more convinced of the utility of such a very simple piece of administrative machinery, because when that register is made it is not put upon the shelf or locked away in a box. It is kept by the sanitary inspector as the record of all his district, and of the sanitary condition of that district. He goes into a number of houses in the village or small town, and he makes a complete and accurate record of their sanitary condition and the other particulars which are contained in this Clause. After a time he goes back. Probably meantime he has got his council to make a request for the various sanitary improvements. These are made, and when he goes back he finds probably that the work has been done, and so, gradually, you get a steady, systematic improvement of all the sanitary conditions of the population.
  I heard one hon. Gentleman say: "What is the good of knowing how many people you have got in the house?" If the hon. Member had ever been a member of a rural district council I think he would know that it is a very good thing indeed to find out how many people there are in a house, because some of the worst possible cases of overcrowding come to light in the rural districts, owing to the deplorable scarcity of cottages for people to live in; and these things in a county should be found out before the evil which may result from them accrues. That is, the inspection should be preventive. I am perfectly certain that a large number of the evils that flow from bad sanitation and overcrowding

  127
  could be stopped before they occur if only the rural sanitary authority, or whatever the authority might be, were really in possession of the facts of the case; and by that means I believe that a very great improvement could be secured in the sanitary condition of the town. With regard to the cost of the inspection, I know that in some rural districts and urban districts where it has been carried out it is costing very little more than the actual cost of the books in which the register is made. In the case of which I have spoken, the inspection was carried out in under 18 months by the sanitary officer himself, and by nobody else, and I believe that the period of five years allowed to every authority before the register is to be completed will enable the whole work to be carried out with very little more expense than is represented by the salaries of the existing staff. After all, if hon. Members are right when they say that the inspection is carried out so admirably at the present time, then surely it cannot cost very much to put the result of the inspection as it is completed down in a public book. Many of the details can be taken straight from the rate book. Under those circumstances, I cannot understand how it can be presumed that it, is going to cost a great deal. I most profoundly regret the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been converted on this matter. We believe this Clause is the most valuable in the Bill in regard to the housing, and I hope at the eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is a Clause worthy to be incorporated in a housing Bill, and if he still persists in not assenting to the principle, at any rate, of this Clause, I think he is missing one of the best chances a Minister has ever had for a very long time in connection with this matter.
  Viscount MORPETH: The value of this Clause is not so much the register itself as the fact that it provides a sort of automatic test whether the work is really being done. The real fact is that a great number of people are still very indifferent to sanitary questions, and even in the better class of houses, where everything ought to be healthy, sanitary improvement would often be of the greatest value. This Clause was carried in Committee against the Government, and therefore I suppose it was only by its inherent merits that it succeeded. It had none of the artificial help that some Amendments get from the Government Whips. When I voted for it
  128
  in Committee there were not so many Domesday books hanging over our heads as at the present time; and I further confess that it requires some strength of mind to adhere to the view I took then in support of this Domesday book, now that there are to be so many others of a more dangerous character. I prefer Paris to Frankfort, and I believe this Domesday book will at any rate be useful. It seems to me that this Committee forgets that during the life of this Parliament we have had one of the most important measures that has been passed, namely, that for the medical inspection of children. We are endeavouring to make the schools sanitary, and that, I think, will do more good than anything else that has been done within the walls of this House during this Parliament. The schools are to be made healthy; why not the homes? It is generally agreed that the homes are too often insanitary. It is already the duty of the medical officers to report on insanitary houses in their respective neighbourhoods. I imagine the medical officer can only know when a house is insanitary by practically going to all the houses, or, at any rate, going to houses coming within the category of those with which this Bill deals. In Clause 16 the Government themselves have put in words which make it the duty of every local authority within Part II. of the principal Act for inspection to be made of their district from time to time.
  It was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that much useful work is already being done in the county of Wiltshire. Although I have some sympathy with what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the municipal associations in regard to the opinion of the municipal authorities, yet I cannot but think there has been some exaggeration of the cost. Even if the cost were appreciable, in a matter which regards the health I believe we shall do well to pay it. It is far better and safer for the people of this country to see that their houses are healthy than to consider the small amount that will be spent in inspection of houses, and I think some sacrifice should be made even if it is going to cost money and going to cause some trouble to the local authorities. If you take this Sub-section as it stands, it is perhaps over-elaborate, and I myself have put down some Amendments to remove the over-elaboration and make it somewhat more simple. But if we take the main points of the Sub-section, one point of itself, I say, justifies the Clause,

  129
  and that is the question of the water supply. Anybody who is acquainted with country villages or country districts knows that the evil in connection with the water supply is a crying one. It is one which ought to have been dealt with long ago, and which at the present time the local authorities are making some real attempt to deal with by way of providing the villages as fast as they practicably can—though I admit the speed is not great—with water supplies. It would be invaluable to have this register. We know that many cottages of this country are in need of a water supply. So far from the register being a dead letter, which would be put on a dusty bookshelf, I believe it will be impossible to have a register of this kind which would be accessible to people in the neighbourhoods where these things are wrong, and which would show them in their glaring nakedness, without some remedy being provided. It is for the reason that this register would be valuable to the local authorities and to the Department in London that I welcome it in the cause of the health of the country.
  Mr. W. H. LEVER: I am very much interested in the question we are discussing to-night. In my opinion, the housing of the people under proper conditions is the most important matter that could possibly be dealt with either in this or any other Parliament in the world. Here we are discussing what appears to be merely the quinquennial survey and register. In the preceding Clause we have provided for inspection—in fact, we have almost over-inspection; we have provided liberally for inspection, and at the very moment we are passing an Act which will have untold effect for good. I tremble myself lest we, by overloading the Clause, go a long way to prejudice the carrying of it out throughout the country. I do not see any useful purpose that will be served. We know the condition of the houses. We have known it for a great many years, apart altogether from registration and from inspection. We know it from the death rate, from the reports of the medical officers, and so on. In dealing with this problem of providing better housing accommodation for the people, and for the better use of our powers, we are dealing much more effectively with the matter in the direction of producing better conditions than any amount of reports and registers. I do not see that we would further our object by keeping those reports and registers. I do not object to them on the
  130
  ground of expense if they served any useful purpose, as I do not believe we could possibily spend too much money on this object if by spending money we could get nearer the ideals we have in view. If we allow this Act to be worked on the lines laid down and if we give it time I venture to say that long before the first quinquennial period, and before the first Report is handed in, we shall see a great change coming over the whole of the country, and we shall see improved conditions. Working on those lines, I believe we may discard at this present moment reports and registers which merely put on record information of which we are already in possession. Such reports cannot make more hateful to us bad housing conditions, and can in no way in themselves either stimulate us in our efforts, or stimulate the local authorities in their efforts, or stimulate or encourage public opinion, as that has already been done. Therefore I think we should not overburden the Bill with a, Clause which is unnecessary, but proceed on the lines laid down in the Bill to realise those ideals of every one of us who take an interest in this question.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. E.G. PRETYMAN: I think that the Committee will agree that the question before us is not the one on which we are all at one, namely, whether it is desirable that local authorities should put on record the very fullest possible information in regard to the sanitary conditions and the occupation of the houses within their district which are used by the working classes. That we are all agreed upon. The question is, Is it necessary in reference to the other conditions which now exist, and which are to exist under other clauses in this Bill, to have this additional Clause? My opinion is that it is not necessary, and for this reason—the Clause provides for a certain number of points to be registered which we may divide into two classes. We have those which are already provided for elsewhere and those which cannot be recorded in any useful form because the conditions are so constantly changing that it is impossible that a quinquennial record can be a full record of many such questions. I would give a reason why, from a common-sense point of view, in my opinion, it will not only be useless, but even injurious to have such a register. At present, assuming this Bill to become law, under other clauses and under the existing-law the local authority, and above all the medical officer, have not only the power, but have laid upon them the duty of making

  131
  inspections whenever it is considered necessary, and at any time when it is necessary, of any dwelling. Those inspections are to be made at a time when some occasion exists for suspicion, and will be made at an uncertain moment. What is suggested here is that there is to be at some particular time, at a moment known to everybody, a return made in regard to the occupation of certain houses. What can be easier than to evade it? It is perfectly easy if there is any intention to evade to make a return which will be perfectly true on the day on which the return is made, but in the class of tenant with which this Bill is particularly concerned the occupation changes at the shortest possible notice. You have a flotsam and jetsam of population going and coming, and the record obtained of the very cases which most require records will be perfectly valueless, because the conditions do not remain not only not for five years, but very often not for five weeks or even five days. Therefore, it does seem to me you are going to encourage expense to force the local authorities to do something which they do not wish to do. The evidence as to that accumulates. I think there is no Member of this House probably who has not received a very strong representation from those who will have to carry out this Bill if it becomes an Act protesting against this Clause, because I think they will take it that this Clause assumes the desire in their case to shirk their duty. They will take it that this House assumes that they will not attempt themselves to form a record of the condition of the property within their area, and which it seems to me they are perfectly able to do. I agree, and everybody agrees, that a record so far as it can be obtained, and it can be obtained under other clauses in this Bill, of every house in the districts is a very desirable thing. Is this Clause necessary to get it, that is the point? I would vote for the Clause if I believed that it was possible to record, and have tabulated and to make good use of all the necessary information obtained by this Clause being embodied in this Bill; but I believe that all the information necessary can be fully obtained, and ought to be, and will be, fully obtained, and that all this Clause will do is to put a tax on local authorities to force them to obtain information which will be absolutely useless to them in so far as it goes, and information which they already have the power
  132
  to obtain under other Clauses. Therefore, as a matter of practical common-sense, and with the fullest sympathy with the objects of the Clause, and because only I believe those objects are attained in other parts of the Bill, and that to pass this Clause would be redundant and would be expensive, and would set the local authorities against the Bill, and in many respects, would be of great difficulty, therefore, on the whole, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not support the Clause.
  Mr. BURNS: The subject under discussion at this moment in the House is very interesting, and to some people it appears to be a very vital matter, for reasons which they have advanced from different points of view. Before I give the views-of the Government on this matter, may I bring before the House the fact that hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the retention of Clause 30, which was put in the Bill against the wishes and the intentions of the Government, hon. Members who have spoken for this retention, speak as if the only alternative to the existing inspection of houses or lack of inspection is Clause 30 itself. That is not the issue. On the contrary, it is the very opposite of what the House ought to be confronted with. I admit that in many places the sanitary inspection of houses in towns and cities and rural areas is far from what it ought to be, and that that inspection ought to be improved and must be improved. We seek to improve it in a more practical, businesslike way than Clause 30 itself, as I will set out. To assume that what is defective in the present sanitary inspection, which requires to be daily, continuous, and, in very poor areas, almost hourly and automatic, can be supplied by Clause 30, is to live in a fool's paradise and to deceive the House of Commons as to what its object is. Let me take the case given by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Morrell). What good is it to a cottager in a rural district, living in an insanitary dwelling, to know that either in 12 months or, after the first 12 months, every five years, his cottage is to be subjected to a structural and sanitary survey, and that not by an inspector who knows its defects? The hon. Member quoted with approval a lonely consumptive cottager in an isolated rural area who ought to be saved from a defective house. What relief is a quinquennial survey or a survey once in 12 months to a man in the last stage of consumption? It is- absurd to

  133
  think that that can be any relief to him whatsoever. But we admit that the rural areas are not inspected as they should be, and that the consumptive patient has a right to have his illness mitigated, or, better still, prevented, by having a sanitary cottage to live in.
  What does the Hill do to bring that about? Hon. Members have omitted to state this, and it is necessary for me to relate what the Bill does on this point. First, the Bill contains very drastic provisions for dealing with defaulting authorities who neglect their duty under the existing law. Secondly, it simplifies and strengthens the present law as to the closing and demolition of insanitary cottages, in doing which, in my opinion, we had better spend money rather than waste it upon quinquennial surveys and providing surplus sanitary inspectors with jobs which may be doing themselves some good, but from which the community profits little. Thirdly, houses are to be kept reasonably fit for human habitation. We appoint a medical officer for every county, who is to devote the whole of his time to this work; we insist that every local authority shall have a public health and housing committee; we insist on an interchange of medical officers' reports between the officers with the county council and with the Local Government Board. We also give the Local Government Board further powers than it now enjoys of requiring a local authority to report on its area with particulars as directed, without foregoing the power the Board now possesses of specially sending down its own inspectors to see that local authorities carry out their duties; and we insist upon our officers giving special reports upon special areas. We believe that the general outcome of the working of the Bill, with the 10 or 12 additional powers to rectify existing defects, to stimulate lax local authorities, and to screw up the level of sanitary operations and inspections, will do more for the people in rural areas in one year than 20 quinquennial surveys would do in the following century.
  Let us look at this matter from the point of view of solid fact. This Clause is in the Bill only because the Prime Minister, very properly under the peculiar circumstances, promised that the measure should be presented to the House as it left the Committee. That was no pledge that we should stand by the Clause, on which the Government was defeated in Committee. What is more, this Clause was not in the original Bill. It was put in by only a
  134
  small majority of 20 to 17, and it is not supported, as far as we can gather, by local authorities, by medical officers of health, or by sanitary inspectors, who, to their credit, are continually asking for increased powers to expand their duties, but who are against this Clause. It is objected to also by the Municipal Corporations Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the Surveyors' Institute, and a number of authorities which I need not mention. They object to it because it is inquisitorial in its character, extravagant in cost, and useless in practical results. First, I will deal with the cost. We have very useful experience to guide us. Applying the test of the experience of the Manchester and Liverpool surveys over smaller areas—about 83 acres in each case—it would want 3,352 persons to do the survey in one year, or 40,000 to do it in a month, as it ought to be done; and it is estimated that the total cost for England and Wales would be nearly £500,000—a sum that would enable the Local Government Board to purchase land for and build 2,500 cottages, at £200 each, and give them to local authorities every five years. It seems to me that, on the ground of cost, there is really no argument why this Clause should be retained. Then I come to the register. The register, if adopted, would be an elaborate Domesday Book of the smaller class of dwellings throughout the country— £40 a year in London, £26 in boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants, and elsewhere not exceeding £16. That means that there will be at least 3,286,000 tenements of less than five rooms to be surveyed and inspected—672,000 in London, 934,000 in county boroughs, 985,000 in urban districts, and 695,000 in rural districts. These 3¼million tenements will not represent the total number of houses to be surveyed, because the Clause is not limited to five-roomed tenements. There are many tenements above five rooms which are not more than £40, according to the standard required by the Bill. Let us look at the difficulties of the situation. There is great force in the point—I think it was one of the best points—made by the hon. Member for Kingswin-ford (Mr. Staveley-Hill). It would mean a separate staff. It must mean that, because you would be taking the practised daily inspectors from their work, which only they can do as well as they do, and to the extent that you have a separate staff, so you would discourage the daily statutory

  135
  duty of the existing inspectors, who would regard this supernumerary quinquennial survey by doctrinaire amateurs as a reproach upon their ordinary professional work. We are asked whether this will do much good. I do not think it will do much good. I am absolutely surprised that we should be asked to go to Paris for an object-lesson and an example of how to do our sanitary work. But I will close with that at once. I know my Paris both by night and day. I know the heights of St. Armand and I know Belleville just as well as I know the elevation of Lavender- hill. But if there is one city in the world that we ought to avoid in this particular matter it is Paris. What is the test of good sanitary inspection and of good sanitary conditions. It is the absence of consumption. What is the evidence of good sanitary inspection? It is a low death rate. Let us grapple with that. I will take Paris, with this survey alleged to cost only £2,500. It is a ridiculous estimate to give, and ignores the fact that outside of those who are engaged upon this very elementary register, beyond those costing £2,500, Paris has 3,171 officers on insanitary and insecure buildings in the City itself, besides 4,488 in the Department of the Seine. What is the result? With all this survey, in existence for 15 years, the facts are these: Where two people die from consumption in London, three die in Berlin, and five to six in Paris. Let us take the percentages. I have them here in the Report of my Chief Medical Officer. The percentage is 1.65 in London, 2.4 in Berlin, and 3.65 in Paris. I go from consumption and take the general death rate. In Paris the general death rate, as a rule, ranges from 18 to 20. At this moment the death rate in London, which is twice the size of Paris, is 13·8—from 20 to 30 per cent, lower than Paris. Whether you take the general death rate or that from tuberculosis there is no justification, in fact or by comparison, between London without its survey and Paris with it. But then the hon. Member for Oxford says, "Oh, but Paris has recently done some thing with regard to tubercular houses." If he knows Paris—
  Mr. MORRELL: I do know it.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member does know it. Well, no educated man ought to be ignorant of it. If, then, Paris is an ideal place from a sanitary point of view, how does he account for this remarkable fact, where 9,500 people die of consump-
  136
  tion in Paris, with 2½ millions of people, we have 9,176 people dying in London from the same disease with nearly five millions of people? Why did he not take his survey a little further? What would he have found? That from 8,000 to 9,500 people die of consumption in Paris in the survey area in what are known as contaminated houses, where people are herded and inspected, and examined almost out of their houses, and almost out of their boots, and inspection has so signally failed to bring about any change. On the contrary, owing to this not being drastically dealt with, consumption is spreading even in the new tenements, and at last Paris is compelled to do what it should have done years ago—throw down these fortifications of disease, and immediately that they are thrown down and that they have tramways all over the place, and that the people live in cottages instead of in barrack dwellings, consumption will diminish, not owing to survey, but owing to action of a sensible and drastic character. I want to know whether the hon. Member for Oxford will take us to other places besides Paris, because if he took us to Berlin he would find an almost similar condition of things. The fact that the survey is made in Continental cities is no amendment of the state of things there. I am aware of the nine-day tourist, who gets his expenses mostly paid for him, going on a tour of municipal inspection of Europe and taking a superficial survey of Paris and Berlin, and because they are impressed by a little more flowers, a little more whitewash and a little more artistic treatment of the frontages, they assume London and England are far behind. Do hon. Members know the black quarters of Berlin? You have no right to take Unter-denlinden as a sample of Berlin, and you have no right to take the Champs-Elysées as a sample of Paris. Go to the constituency of Jean Jaurés! Go to Montmarte! Go to Belleville, among the people living in the block dwellings, who, notwithstanding the survey and the inspection, are infinitely worse off than the people living in the worst slums in London, in a condition of things for which survey is no remedy, as the figures show. What do the Government propose to do?
  Mr. W. CROOKS: God knows.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member for Woolwich says "Who knows?"
  Mr. CROOKS: No; I said God knows.
  Mr. BURNS: I will tell the hon. Member what the sanitary inspectors and the medical officers think, and I will give him a sample of what is done in London and what the Government propose should be done in preference to survey. It is only proper I should deal in a practical way with this technical question. I represent in this House 184,000 people who live in 24,000 houses. If this survey prevailed these 24,000 houses would every five years be architecturally supervised and sanitarily inspected. That would not bring their death rate down. Battersea now says to its 13 inspectors: "You do not want to be browsing around the big houses in Clapham Common and Nightingale-lane, inspecting them whether they want it or not; your place is down in the Latchmere-road district, where people are living eight or nine in a house." Inspect such houses once a day or once a week if required, and once a month if necessary. What is the result of concentrating on such districts? In the case I have given the figures would make Paris and Berlin green with envy. In 25 years in that district, where we have quadrupled our population, we have reduced its death rate from 26·7 down to 12·3 per thousand. In the last ten years the infant mortality has been reduced from 163 to 107 per thousand. In many ways disease has been diminished, and the death rate for adults, infants, and consumption has been brought down to the level of many Continental watering places. At this moment there is going on a process of providing new houses where insanitary houses have been pulled down. In one district where there is a population of 1,500 of the labouring classes the death rate and infant mortality has been reduced considerably. What we want is not a system under which the inspectors go everywhere whether inspection is wanted or not, but we want a sanitary survey where it is most needed, and we want a drastic sanitary inspection, and this is provided for in the Bill. The survey which is proposed does not provide it, for it simply creates an army of officials without any corresponding return for the services they render, and if we go on increasing our needless petty functionaires at the rate some hon. Members desire, without any corresponding good, it would
  end in every other man who was not a policeman being either a sanitary inspector or a Salvation Army captain. No nation can stand such extravagance. No nation with sanitary authorities working in this way can lead the world in this matter. We ought not to be expected to support a ridiculous Clause of this kind, and it is because the Government provide in their Bill a cheaper, better, and a more practical process as far as effective sanitary inspection goes than Clause 30, that I, in the interests of cheap and sanitary reform, ask the Committee to reject Clause 30, and support the Bill in other respects.
  Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I will ask the Committee to come back from Paris and Berlin and look at the situation for a moment at home. It is on account of the sanitary condition of our villages and towns that we earnestly ask the House to allow the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. We have gone into the matter very carefully, and we refuse to accept the assertion that what we propose is going to cost a great deal of money. Much of the work we wish to see done has already been done, and that which has not been done ought to have been done under the existing law. All we ask is that the county medical officer of health shall have an opportunity of putting his work in some concrete form, and that can only be done by a register of this character, after a survey ranging over five years.
  And, it being Half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair: "That the words of the Clause, 'It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of this Section,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Chairman then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock this day, and on any Amendments thereto, moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 121.

  Division No.555.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crooks, William

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robinson, S.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Glover, Thomas

  MacKarness, Frederic C.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Verney, F. W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Winfrey, R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  J. Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Morrell.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gulland, John W.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Reddy, M.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hogan, Michael

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Beauchamp, E.

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Seely, Colonel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cox, Harold

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lundon, T.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Valentia, Viscount

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

  Morse, L. L

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waring, Walter

  Ffrench, Peter

  Muldoon, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Waterlow, D S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Foster, P. S.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Paul, Herbert

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Philips, Col. Sir lvor (Southampton)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gretton, John

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Question, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That Clauses 31 to 43, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 36.

  Division No. 556.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Beale, W. P.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bright, J. A.

  Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Brodle, H. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hogan, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson

  Rees, J. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clough, William

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robinson, S.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cooper, G. J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cox, Harold

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Crean, Eugene

  Latnont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Lundon, T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morrell, Philip

  Waring. Walter

  Glover, Thomas

  Morse, L. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Myer, Horatio

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Winfrey, R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Paul, Herbert

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Philipps, Col. lvor (Southampton)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, P. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  A Gibbs and Mr. Lane-Fox.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Prohibition of Back-to-back Houses.)
  Notwithstanding anything in any local Act it shall not be lawful to erect any back-to-back houses intended to be used as dwellings for the working classes, and any such house erected after the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be unfit for human habitation for the purposes of the provisions of the Housing Acts.
  Amendments made: After the word "Act" "Notwithstanding anything in any local Act"], to insert the words "or bye-law in force in any borough or district."
  After the word "house" ["and any such house"], to insert the words "commenced to be."—[[Mr. Burns.]
  Amendment proposed, at the end to add the words "Provided that nothing in this section—

  143

  (a) shall prevent the erection or use of a house containing several tenements in which the tenements are placed back to back, if the medical officer of health for the district certifies that the several tenements are so constructed and arranged as to secure effective ventilation of all habitable rooms in every tenement; or

  (b) shall apply to houses abutting on any streets the plans whereof have been

  approved by the local authority before the first day of May, nineteen hundred and nine, in any borough or district in which, at the passing of this Act, any local Act or bye-laws are in force permitting the erection of back-to-back houses."—[Mr. Burns.]
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 64.

  Division No. 557.]

  AYES.

  [10.50 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Paul, Herbert

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barnard, E B.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester),

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rees, J. D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robinson, S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bright, J. A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seely, Colonel

  Cave, Georgs

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanier, Beville

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire))

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cox, Harold

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  Massie, J.

  Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Everett, D. Lacey

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Verney, F. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Molteno, Percy A1 port

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Waring, Walter

  Foster, P. S.

  Morse, L. L.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Myer, Horatio

  Young, Samuel

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beauchamp, E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester).

  Brodie, H. C.

  Glover, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Muldoon, John

  Clough, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Craick, Sir Henry

  Hodge, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Reddy, M.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, J.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walsh Stephen

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wintrey, R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Parker and Mr. Richards.

  Vivian, Henry

  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 69.

  Division No. 558.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Rees, J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Robinson, S.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beale, W. P.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rowlands, J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Jackson, R. S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seely, Colonel

  Brooke, Stopford

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Clough, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Verney, F. W.

  Cox, Harold

  Massie, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Myer, Horatio

  Winfrey, R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Young, Samuel

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Paul, Herbert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Radford, G. H.

  Cave, George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Reddy, M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Hogan, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Stanier, Beville

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Glover, Thomas

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gretton, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Parker and Mr. T. F. Richards.

  Question put, "That Clauses 45 to 51, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."

  CLAUSE 52.—(Application of Housing Acts to Scotland.)
  Drafting Amendments made.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 559.]

  AYES.

  [11.5 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Radford, G. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Reddy, M.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hodge, John

  Rees, J. D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hogan, Michael

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bright, J. A.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Clough, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Seely, Colonel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lundon, T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cox, Harold

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tomkinson, James

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  M'Mlcking, Major G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morrell, Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Morse, L. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Myer, Horatio

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Winfrey, R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gulland, John W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Foster, P. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Staveley-Hill and Mr. Fell.

  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

TELEGRAPH (ARBITRATION) BILL.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate. In consequence of representations made to me from various parts of the House that I should accept an Amendment in reference to the question of the costs in the discretion of the Commission, I propose to put down an Amendment to that effect for tomorrow.
Consideration deferred till to-morrow.

NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: Before this Bill is read the third time, I may say that the principle of the Bill has the general approval of this side of the House as well as of the Government. I would only just ask one question of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill and that is whether satisfactory arrangements have been made at Esquimalt and Halifax for naval ships to get repairs done at a reasonable cost, to obtain fuel and also stores? I would also point out in regard to these two particular stations that nothing but good can arise out of this Bill, for not only will this action be of advantage to the Colony, but also an advantage to the Government, who will be able to get better accommodation than they are able now to obtain at these stations. But the Bill goes much further: it gives power to hand over to the Governor of a British Colony any naval station situated in the Colony. That, of course, includes some naval stations of enormous importance—of much more importance to the general defence of the Empire than of one particular Colony. There are safeguards, the principal being naturally the position of the Admiralty which is responsible for naval defence; also no such action can be taken without an Order in Council and the matter being laid before this House. I look forward to the time when, as the outcome of what has recently taken place, naval stations shall be regarded not only as the property of this country, but of the Empire as a whole, and that every naval station shall be equally valuable to the Navy wherever it may be, and in whose ever hand it may
150
be nominally placed for care and maintenance.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the support he has given to this Bill. It is a very simple Bill and is, as he says, entirely non-controversial. It is part, possibly an incidental part, of the great scheme which is on foot for equipping the British Empire with a fleet which will be equal to all its future responsibilities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks whether, in the event of the transfer of Halifax and Esquimalt, we have made provision for the stocking of coal and for fuel. That is provided in the Memorandum, and we have taken full facilities for repairs. As to any actual provisions for reserves of stores, it would be difficult to arrange that at this juncture, because it would be impossible to say just now what the needs would be, but in the Memorandum it is provided that the naval dockyards, including the building wharves, jetties, etc., will be maintained by the Dominion Government in a state of efficiency, and I think that is as far as we can go at the present time in regard to the question of stores.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the fact that as time goes on in the carrying into effect of the mutual arrangements between the Home Government and the Governments of oversea Dominions, the details of which last week were given by the Prime Minister, it might possibly arise that it would be proposed to transfer naval stations other than those we are already proposing to transfer, that is, Halifax and Esquimalt. That is perfectly true, and undoubtedly this Bill does not only give Constitutional sanction to the transfer of Halifax and Esquimalt, but it does provide an instrument which would remove any further necessity for Constitutional sanction should the Government transfer other naval stations. Of course, the Admiralty would devote the utmost care to any proposition of that kind, and the Bill provides that "every representation to His Majesty proposed to be made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall lie for not less than forty days on the table of both Houses before it is submitted to His Majesty." I am very glad to be able to find myself in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I thank him on the part of the Admiralty for the support he has given to this useful measure.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time and passed.

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. CALDWELL in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of noxious weeds by the Department of Agriculture.)
  The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Department") may, by order, declare any plant, the dissemination of which is in their opinion injurious to agriculture, to be a noxious weed, either generally throughout Ireland or in any specified area.
  The VICE-PRESIDENT Of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell)moved to leave out from the word "may" ["may, by order, declare any plant"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words, "with the consent of the council of any county make an order declaring that throughout the county all plants of any species to which this section applies are noxious weeds for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
  (2) The species of plants to which this section applies are rag weed, coltsfoot, thistle, and dock, and the order may include all or any of those species.
  (3) The consent of the county council shall be signified by a resolution passed at a meeting of the council, and a copy of the resolution under the seal of the council shall be accepted as sufficient evidence of such consent.
  (4) The Department may revoke or, with the consent of the county council, alter any order made under this section."
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Will the county council be able to over-ride the Department?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.
  Mr. FORSTER: What will be the result if they revoke the resolution?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department will be powerless to act. I have provided for the county council revoking the order, and I have given the county council this power in deference to wishes expressed on both sides of the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put' and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Destruction of noxious weeds.)
  (1) Where the Department are satisfied that there are noxious weeds growing upon any land, they may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down, eradicate, and destroy those weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice.
  (2) If any occupier upon whom a notice is served under this section fails to carry out the requirements of the notice within the time therein specified, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding, for the first offence, ten pounds, and for the second or any subsequent offence, twenty pounds.
  Mr. FORSTER: I should like to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. P. White), to leave out the words "eradicate and destroy." Does the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture consent to the elimination of the word "eradicate"?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes. I move to leave out the words "eradicate, and" and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), to leave out the word "ten" ["ten pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "five."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Infested areas.)
  (1) The Department, if it appears to them that any area is infested with a noxious weed, may make an order declaring that area to be an infested area and requiring every occupier of land within that area to cut down, eradicte, and destroy every noxious weed of the description mentioned in the order upon the land in his occupation, within a period to be

  153
  specified in the order, not being less than one month after the publication of the order in the "Dublin Gazette."
  (2) Every order made under this section shall be published in the "Dublin Gazette" and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area to which the order relates.
  (3) If any occupier of land within an area to which an order under this section relates fails to cut down, eradicate, and destroy every noxious weed of the description mentioned in the order upon the land in his occupation within the period specified in the order, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence ten pounds, and for the second or any subsequent offence, twenty pounds.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
  Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.

PART III.—GENERAL.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Alteration and revocation of orders.)
  The Department may alter or revoke any order made by them under this Act.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Obstruction of officers.)
  If any person refuses to allow any officer of the Department to enter any land or premises which he is entitled to enter under this Act, or obstructs or impedes him in the execution of his duty, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.
  Mr. RUSSELLmoved to leave out the word "ten" ["a penalty not exceeding ten pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'five' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Interpretation.)
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
  The expression "noxious weed" means any plant declared by an order of the Department under this Act to be a noxious weed.
  The expression "agricultural seeds" means the seeds of grass, clover, flax, cereals, turnips, rape, mangel, carrots, cabbage, or parsnips.
  The expression "occupier" shall be deemed to include:—

  (a) In the case of any public road, the county or district council by whom the road is maintained;

  (b) in the case of any land the occupier of which (being an individual) is absent from Ireland, any agent or other person entrusted with the management of the land on his behalf.

  Amendment made: After the word "weed" ["The expression 'noxious weed' means any plant declared by an order of the Department under this Act to be a noxious weed"] to insert the words "in any county to which the order applies."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Royal Engineer Services (Removal Expenses).
  Royal Engineer Services (Removal Expenses).
  West African Frontier Force and King's African Rifles.
  West African Frontier Force and King's African Rifles.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Dublin Post Office.
  Dublin Telegraph Office.
  Dublin Telegraph Office.
  Commercial and Anglo Cable Company.
  Commercial and Anglo Cable Company.
  Post Office Telephones.
  Post Office Telephones.
  Wireless Telegraphy (Sound-Locating System).
  Wireless Telegraphy (Sound-Locating System).
  Bundoran Mail Deliveries.
  Bundoran Mail Deliveries.
  Reinstatement Applications, Short Property, King's County.
  Reinstatement Applications, Short Property, King's County.
  Canfield French Estate, King's County.
  Canfield French Estate, King's County.
  Maria Waldock Estate, County Limerick (Sale).
  Maria Waldock Estate, County Limerick (Sale).
  Connor Estate, Ballineen, Cork.
  Connor Estate, Ballineen, Cork.
  Goring Estate, Ballynonty, Tipperary.
  Goring Estate, Ballynonty, Tipperary.
  Schull Petty Sessions (Election of Clerk).
  Schull Petty Sessions (Election of Clerk).
  Finance Bill (Rating Authorities).
  Finance Bill (Rating Authorities).
  State Liabilities.
  State Liabilities.
  Manufactured Furniture and Cabinet Ware Imported.
  Manufactured Furniture and Cabinet Ware Imported.
  Limerick to Dublin Train Service.
  Limerick to Dublin Train Service.
  Harbour Grants.
  Harbour Grants.
  Pension Committee Clerks (Salaries).
  Pension Committee Clerks (Salaries).
  Pottery Glaze Analyses.
  Pottery Glaze Analyses.
  Metropolitan Police (Imperial Duties).
  Metropolitan Police (Imperial Duties).
  Bermondsey Guardians (Out-door Relief).
  Bermondsey Guardians (Out-door Relief).
  Feeble-minded and Epileptics.
  Feeble-minded and Epileptics.
  Local Taxation (Provincial Boroughs).
  Local Taxation (Provincial Boroughs).
  Preservatives in Food Materials.
  Preservatives in Food Materials.
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRI CULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL.
SUPERANNUATION BILL.
MARINE INSURANCE (GAMBLING POLICIES) BILL.
RULE COMMITTEE BILL.
METROPOLITAN AMBULANCES BILL.
HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL BILL.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ANGLO FRENCH CONVENTION) BILL.
COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.
ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
BRIDGEND (HOPE ENGLISH BAPTIST CHAPEL, &c.) CHARITY BILL.
JOHN MARSHALL'S CHARITY BILL.
LICHFIELD AND LONGDON CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS AND TRUST PRO PERTY CHARITY BILL.
DEWSBURY AND BATLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES BILL.
WORTLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L]
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

LABOUR EXCHANGES BILL.
  TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS (PREVENTION) BILL.
  Returned from the commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statute made by the University of Oxford, on the 11th May 1909 and sealed on the same day amending Statute Tit. VI., Section I. E., subsections 2 (2) 3 (l) and (m) of the Statutes of the University: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 137.)
SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRI CULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL.
Read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 138.)
SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Denman). (No. 139.)
MARINE INSURANCE (GAMBLING POLICIES) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 140.)
RULE COMMITTEE BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 141.)
METROPOLITAN AMBULANCES BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 142.)
HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 143.)
ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 144.)
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ANGLO FRENCH CONVENTION) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 145.)

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. (No. 146.)
ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL. (No. 147.)
MERCHANDISE MARKS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 148.)
BRIDGEND (HOPE ENGLISH BAPTIST CHAPEL,&c.) CHARITY BILL. (No. 149.)
JOHN MARSHALL'S CHARITY BILL. (No. 150.)
LICHFIELD AND LONGDON CONGREGA TIONAL CHAPELS AND TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY BILL. (No. 151.)
DEWSRURY AND BATLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES BILL. (No. 152.)
WORTLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 153.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Bills (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving Report of Amendment, read.
Moved, "That this Report be now received."—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
LORD FABER: My Lords, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House I should like to make a few remarks upon it. Some of us in the West Riding of Yorkshire were, in the first instance, rather concerned about this Bill, because there the Registrar of Deeds happens to hold a very important position. We are particularly lucky in our Registrar of Deeds; he does his work exceedingly well. The present law is that no person shall be appointed Registrar of Deeds unless he gives his whole time to the office and has gone through a certain legal training. This Bill seeks to go behind that, and I will tell your Lordships, if I may, why I think this change is proposed. In the East Riding of Yorkshire they are particularly fortunate in having a very able, energetic, and popular clerk of the council. It is possible that there may be a vacancy in the position of Registrar of Deeds, and the County Council of the East
974
Riding would like the Clerk to the Council also to become Registrar. It would save money, and they think that this gentleman would do the work very well. That is not contradicted at all. The Clerk to the Council would do the work excellently, but he is not legally able to take the position because he will not give his whole time to it. This Bill is to enable him to take the position. As I say, we in the West Riding when we came to look at the Bill in the first instance were not quite satisfied that a Registrar should be appointed unless he would give his whole time to the work and had gone through certain legal training. But we are now satisfied, because it is laid down in the Bill that no person not fulfilling the two requirements I have stated shall be appointed Registrar unless the appointment has the special sanction of the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL, [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

TRADE BOARDS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the main object of this Bill is the establishment of a minimum rate of wages in certain trades in which what is termed sweating is well known to exist. The establishment by Statute of a minimum rate of wages is, I suppose, a novel expedient, but your Lordships are aware that regulation of the conditions of labour in certain trades is by no means new, and that ever since the passing of the first Factory Act Parliament has, from time to time, agreed to legislation having that object. Only last year your Lordships agreed to a Bill limiting the hours of labour in mines. I have lived all my life amongst miners, and I never doubted for a moment that the passing of that Bill was a right and a just measure; but I confess that I

975
had an uneasy feeling, not with regard to those whom the Bill affected, but with regard to those who were not included in it. I felt, and I think many of your Lordships may have felt, that besides the miners—and I am sure we do not grudge them their good-luck—there were many other people, helpless people, with no political or other organisation, who stood in equal need of help. Therefore I am glad, and I believe your Lordships will be glad, that the case of those poor and helpless people is now to be dealt with. But I admit that that is a sentimental consideration, and it is a consideration which is, perhaps, out of place in dealing with a Bill which is not based upon sentiment but upon hard solid facts.
I think the facts are well known to us all. Every one knows what sweating is, and every one acknowledges it to be a great evil. It is not a new thing. It has been known to exist and its existence has been noted for the last fifty years or more. I do not suppose that during the last twenty years there is any feature of our social system which has been so much inquired into, so much spoken about, and so much written about as the evil of sweating; and the Government are of opinion that the time has now come when the only practical remedy should be applied. It is not only in this country that sweating has excited attention. It has excited attention in practically every civilised country, and in Germany, in particular, I understand that legislation on this subject is imminent. I would commend that fact to any one who may be afraid that by legislation of this sort trade in this country may be driven abroad; and I would point out that even if we do move a little faster in this matter than other countries, and if we do take the lead, as in a matter of this sort I think we ought to take the lead, we shall probably not maintain that lead indefinitely, because other countries are moving, and moving very fast, in the same direction.
I shall not attempt to coin a new definition of sweating. There are many such in circulation already, but I will take what I believe to be the ordinary meaning of the word—the payment by an employer to his workpeople of a wage which is insufficient to purchase for them the necessaries of life; and in bringing forward this Bill I would simply ask your Lordships whether or not
976
you consider that such wages ought to continue to be paid. I do not think that there can be more than one answer to such a question. It is already, to our credit as a nation, a punishable offence in this country to allow an animal which is dependent upon us to starve, and it does not seem very much to ask that the same principle should be extended to human beings. When an insufficient wage is paid something approaching starvation must take place, perhaps not actually in the matter of food, but in poorness of clothing, poorness of lodging, and bad quality of food—that is, unless the insufficient wages are supplemented from some other source. There are cases, of course, in which the wages are so supplemented. In some cases that may be done by charitable relief, perhaps rather misplaced charitable relief, and even I believe by Poor Law relief in some form or another. I think it might fairly be said that a trade which cannot exist without such assistance must be a thoroughly rotten one and a trade of which we should be well rid.
But, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that any trade will either be killed or driven abroad by this Bill, and I do not think that any better proof of that is needed than the warm support which has been given to this Bill by almost all of those, both masters and men, connected with the trades mentioned in the Schedule. What we imagine will happen will be that a levelling-up process will take place. The best class of employer, the man who pays fair wages now, will continue to pay fair wages; the second class of employer, the man who we have reason to believe would like to pay fair wages but is afraid of having his prices undercut by the class immediately below him, will be enabled to pay fair wages; and the third class of employer, the genuine sweater, will have to pay fair wages whether he likes it or not. There is one source from which wages may be supplemented which I have not mentioned, and which falls under a rather different heading. There are certain people, principally women, who wish to earn a little money but are not really dependent on the trade for their living, such as girls living at home with their family or married women who have no children to look after. It sometimes happens that for the purpose of earning a few shillings, a little spending money, such people are willing to accept

977
considerably less than the market rate of wages, and it may perhaps be said that if both parties are agreeable to that arrangement there is no reason to interfere. But I think, my Lords, that it is necessary to look a little deeper than that, and if we do it will be seen that it is far from right that those people, for the purpose of earning a little pocket money, should drag down the level of wages and inflict serious injury on people who have to depend on the trade for their living. There is no reason why these people should not be paid at the same rate as any other people doing the same work. If their work is worth having, it must be worth paying for. If they only devote part of their time to this work they will naturally not earn as much in a day as a person of equal ability who devotes the whole day to the work. But the point is that the rate should be the same. There is no reason why it should not be, and therefore we do not propose to make any exception in those cases.
Four trades have been selected for the purposes of the Bill, and they are set out in the Schedule. They are certain parts of the tailoring trade, the paper-box making trade, certain parts of the commoner lace and net finishing trade, and certain parts of the chain-making trade. Those are all trades in which sweating is acknowledged to exist. There are provisions in the Bill to enable its extension to other trades, and it is the intention that trades carried on under similar circumstances shall be included. That will be done on the initiative of the Board of Trade, and will be carried out by means of a Provisional Order Bill. Thus your Lordships will see that the control of Parliament in the case of the inclusion of a new trade is absolutely maintained. What will happen will be this. The Board of Trade will say that in their opinion the Act ought to be extended to a certain trade, and a Provisional Order will be promoted in the ordinary way and passed through Parliament with the object of carrying that out. It will rest entirely with Parliament to say whether or not that Bill should pass. I should like to say here, as strongly as possible, that it is not fair, as has been done, to describe this Bill as being the thin end of a wedge. The scope of the Bill is absolutely defined, and there is no intention of using its provisions as a general means of regulating wages in all trades. If your Lordships will turn to subsection (2) of Clause 1, you will see that it is not possible that the Bill should
978
be so used. In that subsection the Board of Trade are only given power to make a Provisional Order—
"if they are satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is exceptionally low."
It will, therefore, be seen that the machinery for including a new trade can only be set in motion if those exceptional circumstances can be shown to exist.
The machinery which it is proposed to set up is briefly this. For each of the scheduled trades a central Trade Board will be established, and where the distribution of the trade requires it the country will be divided into districts, in each of which a local committee will be established. The Trade Boards will consist of an equal number of employers and employed, together with a certain number of paid experts, who are alluded to in the Bill as "appointed members." The composition of the district trade committees will be very similar to that of the Trade Board itself. With regard to the duties of the Trade Board, the primary duty will be the fixing of a minimum rate of wages in the trade with which it deals. The process will be this. Each committee will recommend a certain rate of wages for its district. That recommendation will be made to the Trade Board, who, after consideration, will either approve or amend that rate. It will not be necessary for the Trade Board to fix a similar rate for the whole country. What they will do will be to take into consideration the general circumstances of the trade and the special circumstances of the district, and fix a rate which they consider to be fair having regard to all those circumstances. Notice will then be given that it is intended to fix this rate, and an interval of three months will be allowed in order that anyone who wishes to raise an objection may be given an opportunity of being heard. After that period the rate will come into operation to a limited extent. During the intermediate period, which will last six months, the rate will not be compulsory, and no penalties will be incurred by an employer who does not conform to it, but a list will be kept and will be open to public inspection of those employers who agree to abide by the rate. Further, it will be obligatory in the case of all Government and municipal contracts; and there is this other point, that wages at this rate will be recoverable as a civil debt in all cases in the absence

979
of a written contract to the contrary. That concludes what I may describe as the intermediate stage.
We now pass to the compulsory stage. After the lapse of six months from the date when notice was given of the rate fixed the Board of Trade must issue an Order either making the rate compulsory, in which cases the penalties for non-compliance will come into operation, or else the Board must make an Order postponing the compulsory stage. There are three forms of minimum rates of wages which may be fixed. First, there is the minimum time rate. That will be the ordinary rate, and it will operate, of course, in factories and in places which are under the immediate supervision of the employer. The next rate is the general minimum piece rate. That will be based Upon the time rate, and will operate to a certain extent in factories, and, of course, invariably in the case of home work. The Trade Board is not required to fix a general minimum piece rate, but it may do so where it considers it to be necessary. Then there is a third rate—a special minimum piece rate—which may be fixed by the Trade Board on the application of an employer and will apply to any particular article which cannot properly be covered by either of the two other rates. Where a minimum time rate but no general or special minimum piece rate has been fixed and the employer wishes to pay by piecework, the piece rate must be such that an ordinary worker working at this rate will earn not less than he would if paid by time. Besides the duty of fixing the minimum rate of wages the Trade Boards will be required to advise the various Government Departments on points connected with their trades, and in this direction they will be consultative and not executive bodies. We consider that they will be able to do a great deal of useful work in that way.
I have described very briefly the object and scope of this Bill. Its object is the abolition of sweating, and to that object its scope is confined. The abolition of sweating is to be arrived at by the most simple and most direct means possible by securing that a wage on which it is possible to live shall invariably be paid in return for a fair day's work. I have admitted that the establishment of a minimum rate of wages is a new principle, and I understand that in certain quarters it has been objected to as being an undue interference with
980
freedom of contract between individuals. I am quite prepared to admit that interference with free right of contract might be carried to a length to which few, if any, of us would agree to go, but I do not think it can be said that that is done by the present Bill. The minimum wages proposed by this Bill are to be fixed by a Board which will be almost entirely composed of members of the trade affected. The functions of this Board will be very similar to those performed, in trades in which labour is organised, by the accredited representatives of the masters and men acting together, and acting in a manner which, I think, is generally recognised as being to the advantage of both parties.
But there are certain important limitations in regard to these Trade Boards. In the first place, the Trade Board will only have to fix a minimum and not a standard rate of wages; and, in the second place, the Trade Board will only be called into existence in cases where the workpeople have shown themselves to be incapable of any action on their own behalf. I submit, my Lords, that the conditions in these extreme cases clearly call for legislative action, not only in the interests of the poor helpless people themselves, but also in the interests of the community. I know that there are many members of your Lordships' House who have taken, and do take, the very greatest interest in this question. There are many of your Lordships who have, I believe, devoted years to its study and to investigating its causes and its possible cure; and I feel that I can safely leave it to those noble Lords, who sit in all parts of the House, to supply the deficiencies of which I am painfully conscious in my advocacy of this measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all be of opinion that in the interesting observations which the noble Lord opposite has just made he has not said one word too much in commiserating the position of those unfortunate women who are the victims of this sweated labour. There is no spectacle more deplorable than that of these unfortunate workers, not themselves able to fight their way through life in a manner which men might do, and subject to most adverse conditions both of work and of wages. Nothing that the

981
noble Lord has said, nothing that any of your Lordships can say will be an exaggeration of the pitifulness of the cases of which testimony was given before the Select Committee of the Commons.
But my Lords, I thought, if I May be allowed to criticise the general tenor of the noble Lord's remarks, that he made too light of the difficulty of dealing with this subject. He said the procedure of the Bill was simple. I am not sure that I agree with him, but, even if the procedure of the Bill is simple, certainly the subject-matter with which the Bill deals is not simple, but, on the contrary, very complicated. It would be a mistake if your Lordships thought that the mass of home workers are sweated. The evidence appears to be conclusive in the other direction. Apparently, the majority of home workers are persons, no doubt working at a very low standard in the industrial scale, but perfectly able to look after themselves, and, in a sense, well-to-do. But there is a minority, a very considerable minority, a deplorable minority, in connection with whom those conditions do not obtain. Unfortunately, it is impossible to legislate with regard to one set of workers—namely, those whom we pity—without affecting the case of those workers who are perfectly well-to-do, and, in a measure, quite satisfied with the present conditions of their life. That is the first difficulty, and it is a very great difficulty.
There is a second difficulty which pertains, not to the generality of the workers, but to those very workers whom we are here to-day to pity, and, if possible, to succour. It would be a cruel kindness if by any legislation to which your Lordships' House gave assent we were to add to the sufferings of these poor workers one further crushing disaster—namely, to take away from them the only work they have. Therefore, we must walk very warily, and I confess I regretted the tone of confidence which I think, was the feature of the noble Lord's speech. He was only following the example of his chief. I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade, speaking in another place and upon another Bill—the Labour Exchanges Bill—sketched a picture of a sort of universal condition of Trade Boards. When he was advocating the necessary expense for the edifices under the Labour Exchanges Bill he spoke as though there would be a Trade Board meeting in every such building, which he put forward as a
982
reason for its existence. That may be, or may not be an ultimate development, but at the present moment the matter is only experimental, and I hope your Lordships will treat it as experimental. Whether hereafter this experimental may be a success, and whether your Lordship will agree under the provisions of the Bill to extend its operation to other trades, are matters into which we need not inquire at the present moment. Let us first see how this experiment succeeds before we cast our eyes further afield.
I confess that I see no way out of the main proposition which the Government have put before your Lordships' House. As far as I myself am concerned, I assent to the establishment of these Trade Boards, whose principal function is to fix a minimum rate of wages. I do so because the ordinary trade remedy for these evils appears to be iinpracticable—I mean the union of the workers. That is the proper remedy wherever it can be applied, and that is the remedy one would like to see applied in these cases. They know much better—I am speaking of employer and employed—what is good for them than any Trade Board which the ingenuity of the Government or of your Lordships' House can construct. But, unfortunately, the evidence is almost conclusive that these women have not made sufficient progress in the arts of citizenship to be able to combine in a trade union and until they do I presume we must be content with this procedure, not so good and not so effective as the other would have been.
What are the main objects we have in view? About most of them I believe we shall all be agreed. In the first place, we want to secure for these sweated workers fair treatment—that is to say, that it shall not be possible, if we can prevent it, that particular numbers of these poor workers should be worse treated than others in a like case and in like circumstances. As your Lordships know, there are good employers and bad employers, and the latter take advantage of the exigencies of the life of these individuals to treat them more harshly than the good employers would do. We desire, in the first place, to raise the level of these workers to the point which the workers have attained under good employers. That is the first point. There is another object, not certainly within our power, but which, if it were within our power, we should desire to attain—namely,

983
that if the trade permits it the standard of remuneration of these poor workers should be raised all round. There was a considerable body of evidence given before the Select Committee to the effect that the competition between employers in these particular trades had driven down prices lower than they need be. If by our legislation and the establishment of these Trade Boards we can raise prices, because that is what it comes to, in such a way as to give greater remuneration to the workers without injuring the trade, that is another object which I think we should all desire to attain.
I am afraid, however, there are some advocates of this legislation who go further than that. The Select Committee go further, because they view without repugnance the possibility that they may crush out certain trades in the process. I noticed with interest that the noble Lord just now repudiated that possibility. He said there was no chance of such a thing happening—at least I understood him to say so. I am very glad to hear that that is not in the mind of the Government. I think it might be made clearer in the Bill. I say so because I, for one, could certainly not take any responsibility in crushing out these trades, which provide, it may be, the only work on which these unfortunate people have to live at all. The Report of the Select Committee laid down a sort of general proposition that, however much you increase the cost of production in these trades, you never crush them out. That is a very common thesis we often hear in these labour debates. We hear it with regard to hours. It is said that however much you shorten the hours of labour you never injure the trade. Why, you have only to state the proposition in that form to see its absurdity. There must be a limit. It may well be that there may be trades in which you cannot pile on the cost of production without injuring them, and I am glad to hear that His Majesty's Government do not desire to be parties to anything of the kind.
The noble Lord said that one matter which gave him absolute confidence in approaching this subject was that all those who were interested were in favour of these Trade Boards. I am afraid the noble Lord has not read the whole of the evidence. I cannot pretend to have done so myself, but I have read a good deal, and I think it will he found that there were many witnesses drawn from amongst these unfortunate
984
women themselves who pleaded most urgently before the Select Committee that they should be left alone. After all, they were ignorant persons and may have made a mistake. But there were ladies who had taken special interest in this subject who urged upon the Committee the greatest caution in dealing with it. One, I remember, suggested that it was no kindness to take bad food away from a man unless you were prepared to provide him with better. That was a phrase which struck me as showing the point of view from which she regarded this legislation. I am not saying that this legislation is a mistake, but I do controvert the confidence of the noble Lord, and I do suggest to him that if his Bill is not quite clear in its object of not injuring any of these trades it should be amended to make it clear. Although I have ventured to criticise one or two paragraphs to be found in the Report of the Select Committee, there was much in it, of course, of which all of us can heartily approve, and I think in many respects the Committee in their Report were more cautious in dealing with this subject than the Bill of His Majesty's Government.
I would like to call the attention of the noble Lord to certain differences between the recommendations of the Select Committee and the proposals of His Majesty's Government. In the first place, the Committee proposed, as I understand, not altogether to apply the procedure to the same trades; the scope of the Government Bill is rather larger than the scope of the Select Committee's Report. Then there is a considerable difference in the constitution of the Trade Boards as between these two great authorities. The Trade Board of the Government is, as I understand, a central Board—that is to say, for every particular trade there is to be one particular Trade Board for the whole of England. Take, for instance, the tailoring trade. Is there to be one Board for the whole of England or are there to be Boards in every district? I understand that the Government propose that for each of these trades there is to be a single Board. It is quite clear, whatever the Government intend, that the Select Committee intended something very different. They intended local Trade Boards—Trade Boards for the different parts of the country even in the same trade. The Government propose an official element upon the Trade Board. The Select Committee propose no official element, unless it be the chairman, and they suggest

985
that the chairman should be, in the first instance, appointed by the other members of the Board and only appointed by the Government in case they could not agree. I noticed that the noble Lord spoke of a small official element, but the only limit, as far as the Bill is concerned, is that the officials should not outnumber the representatives. I do not criticise the official element, but I should like to have heard it defended by the noble Lord. I do not gather that the piece rate which the noble Lord proposes is the same as the piece rate of the Select Committee—that is to say, that it is to correspond to a time rate exactly. The piece rate is the time rate in which the ordinary worker can do the work. Is that so?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: That is so in cases where the employer fixes his own piece rate in the absence of a piece rate fixed by the Trade Board.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is a very important provision, because it is evident that under a bare time rate or under a piece rate which had no reference to time the old and infirm worker, who works much more slowly than the more healthy and vigorous worker, would be placed at a very great disadvantage. I have shown that there are certain differences or apparent differences between the Report of the Select Committee and the Bill of His Majesty's Government, and I think that the Select Committee are, on the whole, more careful of the interests of the home workers than are the Government, but I think both might have carried their precautions a little further. After all, in what are we mainly interested in this Bill? We are mainly interested in defending the interests of these sweated home workers. Be careful lest we allow the home workers and their influence to be overwhelmed by the superior organisation and the superior influence of the factory workers. That appears to be a matter of the first importance. The Government hardly propose any representation of the home workers at all. They have certain representation of workers generally; they have a sort of pious direction to the Board of Trade, who make the regulations, that they are to have regard in forming the Trade Boards to the representation of home workers; but there is no definite provision under which the home workers must be represented. I hope your Lord-
986
ships will realise that the interests of home workers and the interests of factory workers are not only not identical but are very often divergent and contradictory. It is evident that if the factory workers were asked to decide simply upon their own interests, it would be to their interests to raise wages until they had crushed the home worker out of existence.
The home worker can only exist alongside the factory worker, if engaged in the same trade, if the home worker is willing to accept very much smaller remuneration. It is frequently the case that the factory worker and the home worker make the same article, and the home worker can only compete with the factory worker if a smaller remuneration is accepted. But the factory worker would desire to raise wages until the home worker must go under, and therefore it seems to me of the very essence of this remedial legislation that the interests of the home workers should be specially protected, and that they should not be merged with factory workers but should be treated on a different footing, and, if possible, by different organisations. If you combine this want of direct and definite representation of the home workers with the institution of these large central Boards, I put it to your Lordships how far you think the interests of the home workers will be represented? Is it at all likely that a central Board sitting in London, with, perhaps, one home worker upon it, will efficiently represent the interests of the home workers up and down the country? Is it not almost certain that the superior organisation of the factory workers and the official element and all the other parts of the Trade Board will overwhelm the interests of the home workers and that they will go by the board? I cannot say how surprised I am that the Government have not provided that there should be separate Trade Boards for home work and for factory work. I do not understand why that very obvious solution of the difficulty did not occur to them. Why is it necessary to treat the two on the same footing?
There is one other matter, and one other matter only, to which I propose to refer, and it is similarly with the object of, as far as possible, protecting the interests of home workers. This Bill, like all the Bills now proposed to Parliament, is largely to be carried into effect by regulations. I do not know what those regulations are to be.

987
The noble Lord gave us no indication of what they are to be; but as soon as this Bill becomes law it is out of your hands, and your Lordships will have no control over the regulations. It is not even provided that they should be laid before Parliament. I hope the Government will see the desirability of accepting an Amendment to provide that the regulations shall be laid before Parliament for a certain number of days before coming into effect, and that they should only come into effect if not objected to. If these objections could be met, I think the Bill would be a much more satisfactory measure. I hope the Government will understand that the criticisms which I have ventured to make upon the proposals now before us have not been made in any spirit of hostility to the Bill or to the efforts of His Majesty's Government to deal with this great evil, but with a view to making the Bill effective, and I do not believe it will be effective without some such changes as those to which I have referred.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, it is a very happy thing that after so long an interval of years as has elapsed since your Lordships' Committee on Sweating presented its Report we have at last this measure proposed to us. It is even happier that it comes to us with an accord between men of different views which was very amply and generously shown in another place and which the noble Marquess who has just sat down, in the very thoughtful and critical speech which he addressed to us, has not himself desired to disturb. It is not, of course, that there is not a very strong case against legislation of this kind. There is a very strong case against any attempt to interfere with the freedom with which labour and employment on their respective sides adjust themselves to one another; but the point surely is that that case, strong as it is, has been overborne in this instance and plainly overborne, not so much by logic and theory as by irrefutable facts. It is pathetic to observe what an immense amount of fact, involving human suffering and distress, has to accumulate before we at length arrive at the happy day when the evil can be dealt with and relief given. But in this case that day has certainly arrived, and I think one may say that it is, in fact, overdue.
As the noble Marquess has put it with
988
the greatest clearness, we ought not to interfere if labour could provide its own remedy. Over large tracts of national industry labour has provided its own remedy by the method, at one time severely criticised, of a standard or minimum wage; but there remains an immense area—I will not attempt to quarrel with the noble Marquess in his superior knowledge about the exact extent of that area—in which it is impossible that organisation can bring a remedy. We know that attempts have been made again and again to organise some of these branches of labour, but it has not been found possible. Within my own diocese there are great masses of such workers with regard to whom it may be said that interference is their only chance of freedom. These people cannot get any effective freedom unless you come to their rescue; and to resist that is not real loyalty to the principle of free contract, but an obstinacy which refuses to see where a principle is limited by other considerations. It is satisfactory to find that that obstinacy does not characterise at this stage of the matter either or any of the great bodies of political opinion.
We cannot approach a matter of this kind without remembering that we are taking a step in advance, and though one of the defenders of the measure in another place used rather strong language about the revolutionary character of the Bill, I cannot help feeling that the Bill only does in a new way what has been done in past times in a number of Statutes, which were met by the same argument—that it would crush trades out of existence. The argument that it is better to give people bad food than no food, and arguments of that kind, no doubt have their weight, but they are not new arguments. Hansard would supply a good many instances of their use in past times. Parenthetically I should say myself that if there is any risk in certain cases of crushing very poorly-paid trades out of existence, it is a risk which at a certain stage ought to be run.
The former steps that have been taken in legislation have had the effect of lifting us as a community a step in civilisation. There can be no doubt that if we look at the general state of the population compared with what it was before the Statutes dealing with truck, with women's labour, and similar subjects were passed, it will be seen that we have gone up a step in civilisation, but there remains in a large part of

989
the industrial world a social condition which is barbarous in its effect upon those employed. Innumerable citizens are living under conditions of overstrain which break them down early and give them no opportunity and no strength for any of the things which make life tolerable or pleasant. These conditions of employment are barbarous in their effect on homes, on women's lives, and especially on child life. The worst of it is that when you look into this matter you find that there are really depths below depths. Seven shillings a' week seems a low wage when labour begins at 6 A.M. and ends only at 10 P.M. each day, but if you turn to the evidence available you find cases where the wage is only half that sum. You find sixpence a dozen paid for shirts and you think that pretty bad, but you find that from sixpence a dozen there are large deductions made.
I think the noble Marquess has cut much too sharp a distinction between the factory and the home-worker. You have a state of things in factories—that is my experience in South London—which is quite deplorable in this way, that the workers are powerless to resist any pressure with regard to wages put upon them. The noble Marquess has told us that home-workers are in a far more parlous state still. Strong economic pressure is not really the only force; there is an element of caprice and uncertainty due to the fact that one side in the bargain has no power to keep things steady, and certainly in parts the very low wages tend to go lower still. One of the most deplorable features in these cases is that of the imposition of fines, sometimes reckoned in pounds, upon workers whose wages are reckoned in pence. When these things are stated it must be admitted that we owe a remedy to these people. We must not hesitate longer in extending simple justice. But that is not all. We owe a remedy to ourselves, for I believe that in more ways than could be easily compressed into any statement this is one of the open sores of our social life through which the strength and vitality of the community run away. I believe that as a community we owe it to ourselves to provide some remedy, and if by doing so we help the workers, assuredly we shall help quite as much the whole social and industrial life of the country. I feel constrained to say that the whole problem of unemployment—it ought to be a platitude and I hope it is—is becoming one of
990
such deepening anxiety that the attention of the whole community ought to be riveted upon it to a greater extent than unhappily is the case, in spite of Royal Commissions and their sad Reports; and I think it will be found that it is the classes of labour which are unorganised and unprotected by legislation that make the greatest contributions to that problem of unemployment. We owe this remedy, not only to ourselves, but to other nations too, because a great deal of the work produced under these conditions goes out of the country. What does that mean? It means that it goes out of the country to come into competition with the work produced by other countries, and therefore if the rate of wages in those countries should be more satisfactory than it is here, if the condition of the people there should be less degraded, we by our present conduct are actively helping to lower the social standard there and to do harm to the working classes of those countries.
It is a very pleasant feature in the case that we are applying a remedy which is not only beneficial to ourselves and to other countries but beneficial to the employers too, at any rate to those whom we want to consider. In the Report of the recent Committee on Home Work, upon which employers sat, it was unanimously agreed that you must touch wages, and that you can only touch wages by Trade Boards. Therefore I venture to think we ought not to hesitate at all about this remedy. It is on a very small scale. I hope that no attempt will be made to whittle away any part of the very small measure of relief which this Bill contains. It is confined at present to certain trades. I hope that His Majesty's Government will resist—I trust they will have no occasion to resist—any attempt to withdraw the power given in the Bill enabling protection to be extended, under the most careful safeguards, to other trades which I do not think we can doubt for an instant need such relief as much, or nearly as much, as those contained in the Schedule. We have been some time in coming to this matter. Now that we have come to it, let us be very careful to see that we do not give occasion for attack by pushing it further than it ought to go. On the other hand, we should not be so timid about risks as to whittle away and make ineffective a measure which contains a solid experiment in the right direction, and from the results of which we

991
hope that great benefits will come to those whom we seek to touch. I trust also that we shall be guided to go quietly and steadily forward in whatever further legislation the same kind of circumstances may require.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to ask your Lordships to listen to any lengthy remarks from me on this Bill, but there was one observation made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which I think does need a word of comment. The noble Marquess said it was a self-evident proposition that home workers must be paid less than factory workers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that home workers must necessarily be paid worse than factory workers unless they were engaged in producing the same article.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: The noble Marquess's proposition is that home workers must be paid less than factory workers if they are making the same article. I should have thought that precisely the opposite was obvious, because the home worker provides his own workroom and light, and, to some extent, his own materials. Therefore in the nature of things there does not appear to be any reason in the world why—though unhappily frequently the case—the home worker should be paid less than the factory worker for exactly the same article.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not that the home worker is paid less for the same article but paid less on the whole, because he or she makes fewer of the same article. That is where the difference comes in.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: I do not think that even then the noble Marquess's argument applies. The noble Marquess asked the Government to, as it were, intensify the distinction between the home worker and the factory worker and to have different Boards for the two sets of workers. A great many of us who have been very much interested in this subject for a number of years, so far from desiring that, think that nothing more disastrous could be done with regard to the economic condition of the sweated worker, and that the thing most to be desired is
992
that you should bring the home worker and the factory worker under the operation of the same laws and the same requirements as to the conditions of their work. There is no economic reason in the nature of the case why that should not be. The bad employers feel that they have the home worker much more in their grasp; and the whole object of this legislation is to enable just that class of worker who is most powerless because weak and unorganised to get some measure of the benefits which more capable workers have been able to secure through organisation.
I was glad to hear the noble Marquess speak with such enthusiasm of the work of the trade unions. With that I would desire to associate myself; but the object of this legislation is to enable those who cannot organise themselves to obtain some measure of the advantage of organisation; and I am quite sure that His Majesty's Government are right in believing that what they have to do is not to dissociate the home workers from the factory workers but to bring them more and more into the same category and under the operation of the same laws. Therefore I earnestly hope that the noble Marquess will not do anything in the direction of setting up a distinct Board or a distinct mode of treatment for home workers. Nor do I believe there is any kind of economic necessity or justification for such separate treatment. I believe the Bill will strengthen the hands of the best class of employers against the competition of bad employers. I do not think there is any other department of our industrial life in which there appears to be so marked a difference between the bad employer and the good employer, and I do believe that one of the most conspicuous effects of the Trade Boards Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be to help the good employers to contend against the competition of the bad employers. I do not doubt that there is a certain measure of experiment in this, as in almost all other kinds of legislation. I believe that those of us who are most interested in the institution of these Trade Boards and believe most in the principle would be very glad if the experiment could have been made at some time when trade was more obviously on the rise. We are a little anxious about the moment when the experiment is tried; but it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have designed it in a form as moderate and as restricted as possible, and I do most earnestly hope that

993
nothing will be done in this House which will in any way weaken the force of this moderate Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, as a member of the Anti-Sweating League, which has for many years advocated the establishment of wages boards in this country, I desire to express my satisfaction at the introduction of this Bill and at the reception which it has received in your Lordships' House. I feel profoundly grateful that something is at last to be done for a class of people who are singularly deserving of the assistance of Parliament, and who are, by the nature of their circumstances, utterly incapable of helping themselves.
It was nineteen years ago that a Committee of this House, presided over by Lord Dunraven, first investigated the whole matter of sweating, and issued a Report which opened the eyes of a great many people to an evil of which they were up to then largely ignorant. Eighteen years went by, and nothing was done for the people who came before Lord Dunraven's Committee and explained the circumstances of their lives. Last year another Parliamentary Committee was appointed by the other House—the Committee on Home Work, presided over by Sir Thomas Whittaker. Again the same story was told, in some cases by the very same people, of the existence of this evil, which had been going on all these years. The circumstances of their lives had not been affected except by the natural order of events, which tended still further to lower the wages which they received. Now at last we have definite action on the matter taken by Parliament, and I say I am profoundly grateful that we have arrived at that day at last.
It is not necessary, I think, in order to defend this Bill, to dwell at all on the pathetic side of the lives of these sweated workers. I do not propose to bring forward any facts showing the low wages which they receive and the hardships of their existence, because I do not think there is any need, in this House, at any rate, to stir up sympathy for this class of people. I do not suppose there is a single member of this House who would not be anxious and willing to put an end to the evil if he clearly saw his way to do it. Everyone who has spoken up to the present has expressed sympathy for the sweated workers. But
994
there is another set of facts which I think deserves to be mentioned, because these facts supply at once the justification for the Bill and the best hope that it will prove a success. I refer to the facts which show the variations in the payments that are made to different workers in the sweated industries. The subject was referred to by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and it is really the very root of the whole matter and the whole case for the Bill. It is the fact that in all these industries which we describe as sweated industries, whereas some of the workers are receiving wages which amount to perhaps a penny or two-pence an hour, and from five to six or seven shillings a week, other workers engaged in the same trade, making precisely the same articles under precisely the same conditions, but for different employers, are receiving wages twice and three times that amount.
I could quote examples illustrating what I mean. There was an inquiry held recently in Glasgow into the circumstances of some of the trades them and there was shown to exist in the clothing trade a difference of fifty per cent, between the wages paid by the best employers and those paid by other employers. At Cradley Heath, among the chain-makers, there is an instance of the difference between the wages paid to factory and home workers. Some workers engaged in factories were receiving three times as much wages as home workers. Again, at Whitechapel a firm pays sixteen shillings a week to its tea packers, whilst another firm only pays seven shillings and sixpence to the same class of people. Lastly, I would give an instance not merely of different rates of wages in the same district but of different rates of wages paid in the same firm. In a shirt factory in the East-end in which women worked upon the same shirts, cut by the same people from the same bale of material, there was a difference in wages of between forty-five and fifty per cent., the point being that in these industries where there is no mobility of labour and no organisation there is no uniformity in payment. The whole trouble is that owing to lack of organisation on the part of the workpeople, the good employers are constantly being under-cut by the bad employers and wages are consequently dragged down from the level which good employers could well afford and would be willing to pay if they were left to themselves.
The remedy for this state of affairs is not

995
so much a general rise in wages throughout the trade as to establish uniformity in the rates of payment and to secure that all workers doing under the same conditions the same kind of work shall receive the rate of wages which it is possible for the good employer in that trade to pay them. That is what this Bill aims at doing. The real object of the Bill is to enlarge the wage-fixing unit from the single individual to the single trade, and to secure by an artificial machinery that once a rate of wages is determined as fair to the workers and to the employers that shall be the minimum which shall prevail in the whole trade. I maintain that, though novel, this legislation is neither vicious in principle nor revolutionary in practice. It must, of course, as the noble Marquess who sits on the Front Opposition Bench said, be approached with great care and caution. There are obvious objections to be seen in legislation of this kind, but, from the economic point of view, I believe that the main effect of the Bill will be to provide artificially in these parasitic trades the same kind of organisation for collective bargaining as already exists in the larger and healthier trades by natural process.
The noble Marquess expressed a fear that by this legislation we might be adding still further to the burdens of these sweated home workers, and he said that the Bill must be very carefully scrutinised from that point of view. If I shared his fears on that point I should be very reluctant to see this Bill pass into law, but I think that, if the machinery which is set up by the Bill is closely examined, it will be found that there are a number of provisions which have been inserted with the express object of protecting the unskilled worker. In the first place there is the minimum time rate established by Clause 4, but which is to be fixed not only for different trades but even for different branches of the same trade, as it may happen that one branch of a trade may be sweated, whereas the trade as a whole may not be sweated. It is further laid down that the minimum time rate may be fixed for different classes of workers. That is in order to secure a distinction between those who are beginners in their trade and those who are skilled and expert. Again, there is a distinction made between home workers and factory workers, and different rates may be fixed for those who work in their own homes and those who work in factories. Lastly there is a differentiation between the
996
different processes of the same industry, so that a different rate of wages may be fixed for processes like finishing in the tailoring trade. In this way there is great elasticity in the time rate in order to meet the interests of different classes. The home worker, as a rule, will do his work on a piece rate and not on a time rate. The piece rate again is divided into a general piece rate which will be fixed by the sub-committee of the Trade Board for articles of uniform shape and size, and the special piece rate which any employer can, on application, get fixed for his own workers.
There is another matter which ought to be mentioned. Subsection (3) of Clause 6 provides that if a Trade Board are satisfied that any worker employed on time work in any branch of a trade to which a minimum time rate fixed by the Trade Board is applicable, is affected by any infirmity or physical injury which renders him incapable of earning that minimum time rate, and are of opinion that the case cannot suitably be met by employing the worker on piece-work, the Trade Board may sanction a special rate being fixed in this special case. I imagine that this power would be rarely used, but it is inserted in case there may be any worker or class of worker who, owing to the operation of the minimum rate of wages, might be crushed out of employment. From an economic point of view this elasticity in the machinery gives us considerable safeguards against the possibility of workers being deprived, as the noble Marquess said, of that small amount of work which they are able to do, and their lot being made still worse than it has been hitherto.
The experience in the healthy trades in which organisations of this kind have sprung up voluntarily rather justifies us in believing that the same result will take place when these Trade Boards are established. In industries like the cotton industry, where the rate of wages has gone up as the result of the collective bargaining of the workers and the employers, instead of the price of the finished article being increased, exactly the opposite has taken place. It is not a necessary consequence that an increase in the rate of wages should be followed by an increase in the price of the finished article. I admit that there is all the difference in the world, politically speaking, between voluntary machinery of the kind I have mentioned and com-

997
pulsory machinery such as that set up in this Bill, but from an economic point of view the result is the same. The Rill has been received with some apprehension from a political point of view, on the ground that new authorities are being set up with new powers which are in themselves unusual and strange, and which are, perhaps, capable of extension in directions which may not at present be foreseen; but I would point out that these new powers set up in the Bill are safeguarded by a very large number of provisions and restricted in various directions.
In the first place, the Bill is only to apply to those trades which are mentioned in the Schedule, and any extension to other trades can only take place with full Parliamentary control by the Provisional Order machinery. Therefore Parliaments of the future will have the matter of the extension of the machinery of this Bill entirely within their control. Then the Trade Boards themselves will be composed of workers and employers in an equal proportion, with a certain number of expert official members to guide their deliberations; and I think we may feel sure that a body so formed, on which all those who are interested in the trade from any point of view are represented, will not be likely to do anything which would damage the trade from a business point of view. Then there is the tentative way in which the whole process is established. Every effort is to be made to try and bring about the establishment of these Boards by voluntary process. In addition to the general Trade Boards for the whole country there will be district trade committees, on whom will devolve the duty of making inquiries and recommending the minimum rate of wages suitable for particular trades; and when the minimum rate is promulgated there will be a probationary period of six months during which opportunity will be given to those engaged in the trade to make use of the machinery of their own accord, and it will only be after the lapse of this time and when there is ample force behind it that the minimum rate will be made obligatory.
Throughout the whole of the proceedings there is the Board of Trade perpetually in the background to safeguard the interests of each particular trade. Its sanction is necessary to every minimum rate of wages which may be fixed; and there is this further
998
provision in subsection (4) of Clause 4, that if by any chance, owing to some interest not being fully represented on the Trade Board, the rate of wages may be fixed higher than would have been the case if the employers were bargaining with a representative body of workmen, power is reserved to the Board of Trade in those circumstances to alter and reduce the rate fixed. There is one other matter with regard to the home worker to which I wish to refer. I suppose the noble Marquess, who felt that home workers were not going to receive sufficient representation on these bodies, has noticed that in subsection (3) of Clause 11, which deals with the regulations under which the elections to these Boards will take place, there is a provision that in framing the regulations regard should be had to the desirability of the representation of home workers on the Trade Boards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I mentioned it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The machinery for the election of these Boards will be entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade and will be matter for regulation; but, as far as the Bill gives us any indication it is obvious that due regard will be had to the circumstances of home workers. In legislation of this kind, which is new to this country, it is of some value, I think, to see what has been the experience of other countries where similar legislation has been attempted. We have no experience to guide us in Europe. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said, we are leading the way in this matter. But when we turn to the Colony of Victoria, where these Wages Boards have been established, there is a great deal in their experience which leads us to hope that this legislation will be successful in this country. Wages Boards were established in Victoria in 1896, and were made applicable to six trades only as an experiment; but in 1903 they were held to have justified their existence, and were made by law part of the permanent machinery of trade. It is an interesting fact that half the total number of Wages Boards which have been established in that Colony have been set up at the instance of the employers themselves; and the Chief Inspector of Factories in Victoria has asserted that sweating has been practically extinguished in many trades and industrial disputes have practically ceased, only one strike

999
having taken place since the establishment of the Boards, and that of very short duration. We have already some indication in this country that our experience will be of a similar kind, because, with regard to the trades already included in the Schedule the majority of the employers in those trades have expressed their appreciation and approval of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Marquess will not accuse me of over-confidence if I say that these facts are a happy augury for legislation of this kind, and if I also assert that in the safeguards and elasticity of the machinery of the Bill we have security against its abuse or failure. There is no doubt that the legislation is an experiment and a new departure; but I assert that the evils with which the Bill is intended to deal are sufficient to justify experimental legislation. We must remember that we are dealing with a class of people who, from the very nature of their circumstances, are utterly without the means of supplying the necessary organisation themselves and coming to their own assistance; we are dealing with a class of people in whose lives there is going on the fiercest possible struggle for existence; they are people who are dumbly unhappy all the time, and it is because they are inarticulate and unable to voice their grievances that Parliament has for so many years refrained from taking up their case. It is because I believe that this Bill will go a long way to improve their conditions and to make their existence a little easier that I welcome its introduction by the Government and hope that your Lordships' House will pass it into law.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I feel that I should be lacking in Parliamentary courtesy if I did not take this opportunity of saying at any rate a few words by way of expressing my satisfaction at the introduction of this Bill. I feel under this obligation because during the course of the autumn session I put the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the trouble of a short discussion and pressed him for an answer as to the intentions of the Government. He was not able to give me that answer at the time, but my satisfaction is none the less having seen that the hopes which I entertained have been fulfilled.
I range myself in my approval of this Bill with the noble Earl who has just
1000
spoken, and I do most heartily and sincerely congratulate His Majesty's Government on the action they have taken. In spite of the attractions and the distractions of their enormous programme of legislation, they have dealt promptly with the Report of the Committee which inquired into this question. What they have done is to take definite action. They have moved from the position of inaction which, in my humble judgment, has been an absolute disgrace to the Parliament and Government of this country for so many years. It was twenty years ago that this question was fully investigated and reported upon. I believe that all the recommendations of the Committee of that time were carried out; yet the evils of sweating have continued, I will not say in an undiminished degree, but still in such a degree that a further inquiry has been necessary, an inquiry which has resulted in very prompt action.
What I cannot understand about this question is that the national conscience, which is so easily aroused in regard to delinquencies amongst other peoples or oppression or hardship in other countries, has not been aroused in regard to this terrible evil which has existed so long in our midst. If everything that had been said on political platforms in regard to "Chinese slavery" in South Africa had been true and justified, I do not think that the suffering could compare with that of the sweated workers; and, similarly, it would not be difficult to multiply instances in which popular indignation has driven Parliament to action in this country on account of human misery which certainly did not exceed, if it equalled, that of our own fellow countrymen and fellow countrywomen who are suffering from the evils of sweating. In these circumstances I cannot understand how anybody can for one moment question the propriety of interference, how anybody can stop to consider the bearing of economic theory in regard to this question. The evils of sweating are there. They are, without doubt and beyond question, a blot on our civilisation and a denial of that humanity of which we make so much boast. That being so, surely we ought not to be deterred by any theory from adopting that which appears to be an effective remedy.
The Government have taken steps to remove the disgrace of leaving the matter alone, and we may be thankful to them.

1001
I venture to think the step they have taken is a step in the right direction, but I feel that it is a very small step. I should have liked them to go further. The Secretary to the Board of Trade in another place described this Bill as a "revolution," and the phrase has evidently impressed all those who have spoken this evening. I think that was hyperbolic language hardly warranted even by the pardonable pride of one who is comparatively new to office. There is absolutely nothing that is revolutionary in this Bill. There is nothing that is inconsistent with the principles which have underlain all our social reform and the factory legislation of the last fifty or sixty years. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark even seemed to be among those who regard it as a dangerous or an anxious innovation to interfere between capital and labour, and who regard this as the first occasion on which the State has interfered to regulate wages. I take a different view. I hold that the very first of the long series of Acts for social reform, the Truck Act, was an Act which interfered to regulate wages, and in the latest of the series—the Eight Hours Act—there is no question whatever that the action of Parliament has interfered between the employer and the workman in the matter of payment. Then, again, there has been interference in regard to the remuneration of labour in the administrative acts of Government Departments themselves—a fact which is, of course, familiar to everybody.
Well, my Lords, in these circumstances it is impossible to regard this Bill as a revolution. It is an experiment, and I venture to think that it is not a large experiment. I think that the Government might have done more while they were about it. There is no question as to the evil and its causes, but His Majesty's Government have only touched half the question. It is no use whatever to tell the British employer that he must observe a minimum rate of wages unless you tell the foreign employer that he must do the same; otherwise it follows that you are handing over the trades concerned to foreign sweated labour. While you rescue the unfortunate victims of sweating from one form of starvation, you hand them over to another which is, perhaps, worse. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill tried to anticipate this objection. His argument was that legislation in regard to sweating
1002
is being considered in other countries and that we can safely assume that they will follow our lead and legislate on similar lines. I need only remind the noble Lord that similar anticipations in regard to the great economic creed, of which, no doubt, he is a devoted adherent—the creed of Free Trade—were put forward to justify its introduction, but those expectations have not been fulfilled, and I see no reasons why foreign countries should follow our lead in this smaller respect any more than in the matter of Free Trade.
I think that the Government, in spite of their obstinate adherence to the dogmas of Free Trade, might very well, without any discredit to themselves or any objection from their supporters, have taken yet one more step in the direction which has been indicated to them by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the direction of common sense. I am referring to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in regard to the Patents Act, and the Merchant Shipping Act. In a very remarkable skit by a French writer, called L' Ile de Pinoguin, there is a story of a millionaire which impressed me very much. With this millionaire the habit of accumulating had become so strong that he sacrificed everything to it. He led the life of a pauper, and no consideration whatever would induce him to give anything. His workmen were sweated and oppressed, and at last one of them, in desperation, gained access to the room of the millionaire who was lying on a sickbed and threatened him with a revolver. The millionaire was staunch to his principles. Rather than give this man a rise of wages and so abandon his principles he allowed himself to be shot. He was a martyr to his principles. His Majesty's Government adhere with similar obstinacy to the dogmas of Free Trade, but they let others be martyrs on their behalf. They are not suffering themselves from this obstinate adherence to principle. It seems to me that such bigotry is a cold, cruel, callous, cynical conception of Cobdenism, which the warm-hearted author of that creed would have indignantly repudiated himself, and I do think that His Majesty's Government might have made some provision for protecting the victims of sweating from the new danger of foreign competition. We must be content for the present with what we have got, and it will be left to a Unionist Government and to Tariff Reform to apply the real and the

1003
final remedy for this evil. As regards the machinery of the Bill, I have no cause for complaint or for criticism. I think it is, on the whole, satisfactory. There are one or two small points on which I think it might, with advantage be brushed up, but I do not share in all the larger apprehensions which have been expressed this evening. Apart from my regret that the Bill has not gone further, I am sincerely gratified that His Majesty's Government have taken steps to meet this evil.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I shall not occupy your Lordships' time for more than a few minutes, but I wish to call attention to one matter. In my opinion the notice to be given to a trader who may hereafter be taken under the wing, so to speak, of the Board of Trade, is not sufficiently long. I think this is a good Bill, though it is of a grandmotherly type. The difficulty seems to me to lie in one direction—namely, the question of the wages to be paid. I think every man in a trade would like to pay good wages if he could afford to do so, but if he has to pay wages that are fixed at too high a figure his business ceases and there are more unemployed than formerly. It must be remembered that we have to compete with traders in particular trades all over the world, and when wages are increased to too high a figure the men in those trades cannot compete with the foreigner and they have to go out of the trade altogether. The Board of Trade in past years have conducted their different negotiations with great success. They have had great difficulties to face, and in facing them have shown tact, moderation, and, I would say, equity.
My sole reason for rising is to refer to the matter of notice When this Bill was first introduced in the other House four trades were scheduled, but power was taken to schedule any other trade that did not appear to the Board of Trade to conform to certain regulations with regard to wages. In the event of another trade being taken under the wing of the Board of Trade an Order had to lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days. No other provision was made by means of which notification should be given to the trader that his trade was to be attacked, but when the Bill went to the Grand Committee of the other House a change was made, and instead of the Order lying for thirty days on the Table of Parliament it was provided that this should be done by Provisional Order, which, of course,
1004
could not be acted upon until confirmed by Parliament. I had the advantage of communication with an official of the Board of Trade, and he was good enough to point out to me this fact regarding the Provisional Order and I expressed my satisfaction at the time. I hope he will excuse me for having changed my opinion. I do not think a Provisional Order is sufficient notice to a trader who is, so to speak, to be attacked. It is a matter of great moment to a trader to know what is proposed to be done, and I do not think there would be any objection to reasonable notice. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that when any fresh trade is added to those already dealt with in the Schedule twenty-one days' notice should be given by advertisement.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, my noble friend behind me gave so clear and full an account of the provisions of this Bill that I need not attempt to go over any of the same ground, and I think that my noble friend has no reason to complain of the reception which his Bill has met with at your Lordships' hands. Even the noble Marquess opposite, who is not now in his place, approved of the provisions of the Bill, generally speaking, although his approval was of a somewhat qualified kind. On the other hand, the two right rev. Prelates and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, all in very illuminating speeches, gave a distinctly fuller approval to the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, although he made one severe criticism on what he considered an important omission from the Bill, yet gave a meed of praise to our efforts which I am sure must have gladdened my noble friend behind me.
It is perfectly true—and in this I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—that this Bill does involve a new departure in our legislation, and that departure is only in our minds justified because we regard it as a special remedy, almost of a surgical character, for a morbid condition of things attaching to certain particular trades. I do not know that any real fear has been expressed in this House, though it may have been elsewhere, that the provisions of the Bill are likely to be indiscriminately applied to other trades. The reason why they are not likely to be so applied seems to me to consist in the fact that these sweated

1005
trades are in reality of a very marked character, a character different from the ordinary trades both in this country and other countries. All over the world in certain trades where the particular conditions exist such as exist in the four trades in the Schedule you will find the same evils and the same difficulties. These particular trades attract a special type of enfeebled worker, if I may say so, partly owing to the facility with which a great part of the work connected with them can be done at the workers' homes, and partly owing to the fact that the conditions of the trades render almost impossible those combinations which are the strength, as I am glad to think, of the greater number of trades both in this country and in other countries.
The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, made some observations upon the character of the Trade Boards that we set up under this Bill; and, in passing, I may say he quite unwittingly did an injustice to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to an observation which the noble Marquess thought he had made as to the extension of Trade Boards. My right hon. friend, as I well know—and I think he is perfectly right—looks forward to an extension of Boards, either in connection with labour exchanges, or, possibly, in connection with some of the provisions of this Bill, not with a view of the fixing of minimum wages by such Boards, but with the idea that they may become friendly councils as between employers and employed, at which all manner of questions connected with particular trades can be discussed. It must not be taken that my right hon. friend's statement had anything to do with a general extension of the principle of fixing a minimum wage.
Then the noble Marquess spoke of the large number of official members on these Trade Boards, and he said, unless I am mistaken, that the only provision which safeguarded their numbers was that they should not exceed the number of unofficial members. There the noble Marquess is in error. If he will look at Clause 13, subsection (2), he will see that the official members must be less than half the number of unofficial members on the Board. Then the noble Marquess asked what purpose the official members would serve. I think it is clear that the existence of these official members must have a steadying effect and
1006
the effect of inducing similarity of treatment in the same trade over different parts of England. It would be, I think, a heavy burden on the employers and employed in some of these trades to set them to work without some assistance of the kind in regulating the difficult questions which may come before them; and for that reason I confess I think it is not difficult to defend the existence of the official element on the Trade Boards and also on the district committees.
The noble Marquess expressed very keen anxiety for the interests of the home workers as distinct from and as being even more important than, those of the workers in factories. I think the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham gave a quite full and complete answer to the suggestion of the noble Marquess that it would be advisable to have separate Trade Boards for the two classes, because he was able to show that in reality, although the interests of the two classes may superficially in a particular case appear to be divergent, as a matter of fact they are, in the strictest sense, identical. The noble Marquess spoke of the helplessness of the home workers on these Boards, and seemed to think that the Board would be dominated by the representatives of those who work in factories. But the noble Marquess surely forgot this. The home workers have one very important set of people on their side—namely, the employers. The existence of the class of home workers is obviously the greatest possible saving to the employer; he does not at all wish to crowd them out of existence in any way, because if the particular employer had to substitute factory workers for all the home workers who make the goods in which he deals he would have to supply factory room and machinery and very largely increase the amount of capital which he has invested in the business. Therefore it seems to me almost to be ex hypothesi that the interest of the home worker against that of the factory worker will in a great number of cases have the support of the employer on the Board.
Then the noble Marquess laid it down as an axiom, and expected general concurrence in the statement, that a rise in wages in any particular trade must necessarily lead to a rise in prices. In the days when we all learned political economy we were always told that high prices did not necessarily make high wages. The converse,

1007
I think, can be shown to be true in many instances, and in this particular case there are various reasons why the sort of rise in wages which is contemplated under this Bill need not necessarily lead to anything like a general rise in prices. In the first place, I think it cannot be disputed that in the case of these sweated home workers an increased wage will in many cases add to the actual efficiency of the individual. A great many of them are underfed and have not sufficient means of keeping their rooms warm, and it may be assumed, I think, that such extra wages as they may receive will be spent in a manner which may add to the individual efficiency of each. Then, in the second place—this is the point which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, it is one of the most important considerations to be borne in mind in connection with the whole of the Bill—there is the most astonishing divergence of wages paid by different employers in respect of the same work done; and the idea, therefore, is not so much to raise the standard of wage as to fix a minimum wage, raising the price paid by the bad employer to the level of that paid by the good employer. If that is so, the rise in price which would follow from a proceeding of that kind I should conceive to be very small indeed.
There is also the fact that in a great many of these trades it is generally believed, and I think it is undoubtedly true, that the profits of the middleman are in certain cases far too large. Nobody knows what they are, but it is suspected that in many cases they could stand a great deal of reduction, and that, in other words, gives a certain fund from which a rise of wages in individual cases could be found without sending up prices. There is the further consideration, which, I think, was mentioned by the noble Marquess himself, that the tendency of these Boards certainly will be to lessen the cut-throat competition between different employers, which undoubtedly does something to keep wages down, and which we should like to see as far as possible done away with. I quite sympathise with the noble Marquess opposite in his anxiety for the interests of the home worker. We certainly do not wish to see such work improved out of existence altogether. On the other hand, it must be remembered that there may be cases of a sort of dreary acquiescence in their present deplorable conditions by individual
1008
home workers, who dread the idea of any change lest it should mean the loss of any work they have, but this cannot be allowed to override general considerations and the welfare of such workers as a class. I do not know that I should go quite so far as some speakers, because it is possible that in the case of certain actually moribund trades a few home workers still cling on at work which has, in the main, been transferred to factories because it is found it can be done there so much more cheaply. It may be that a few of these, so to speak, almost dead leaves remain on the tree working at a starvation wage, and I confess I do think it is possible, and I cannot pretend to regret it, that in some cases a complete euthanasia of such work may be accelerated by the passing of this Bill. But these are the only cases in which I think it can be said that any particular kind of work will be done away with by this legislation, and I repeat that I do not think that, in itself, can be considered a regrettable fact. I will even go so far as to say that even if some individuals lost a little work of that kind, from some points of view they would be better off in receipt of Poor Law relief.
The only other point on which I wish to say a word or two is that which was dealt with by Lord Ampthill—foreign competition. He seemed to assume that the result of this legislation might be that we should be flooded by foreign-made sweated goods, and the noble Lord, replying to my noble friend behind me who said that legislation similar to this was contemplated by several countries in Europe—I believe my noble friend might have gone further and have said that such legislation actually exists in some eases—said that because Mr. Cobden's supposed expectation that other countries would adopt Free Trade had not been fulfilled, my noble friend might be equally wrong. But, my Lords, the cases are not parallel, because we have no right, I think, to assume that foreign countries are behind ourselves, or likely to be behind ourselves, in legislation of this kind which exists on a humanitarian basis. Whether foreign countries were at any particular time likely to adopt a particular fiscal system is another matter, but I do not know what authority the noble Lord opposite can have for assuming that all countries on the Continent of Europe will necessarily lag behind us in promoting legislation of this kind. But

1009
there are many other reasons why the noble Lord's point does not, I think, assume real importance. In the first place, I have given various reasons by which I have endeavoured to show that the general effect of this legislation need not be, and ought not to be, to raise to any serious extent prices in the trades concerned. The noble Lord must remember another thing—that the principal trade affected here is an export trade. The ready-made clothing trade is one of the trades we hear so harshly spoken of by Tariff Reformers because it is supposed to be a low-class trade, and our exports in that trade are considered—I cannot understand why—to be inferior in value to other exports which produce the same amount. This is an export trade and is therefore free from foreign competition. It would take a great deal, so long as we go on exporting£2,000,000 worth or more of ready-made clothing, to bring prices into such a condition that we should be likely to be importing ready-made clothing. Consequently the fears of the noble Lord in that respect are, I think, somewhat baseless.
The noble Marquess opposite asked a question regarding the laying of the regulations on the Table. I should have thought myself that the specific regulations dealing with different trades and different branches of trade would have been of so technical a character that it would not have been of very great service to lay them before Parliament, but I have no doubt that my right hon. friend will take the noble Marquess's request into consideration. I have nothing more to add except to express once more the satisfaction with which I have regarded this debate. The Bill has been very fairly and even generously spoken of by all those who have taken part in the debate, and I hope that I may not incur the censure of the noble Marquess and be thought, like my noble friend behind me, to be too sanguine if I say that, in spite of the limitations which attach to all social legislation of this kind, which we know cannot create a new heaven and a new earth, yet I venture to express the hope that some very genuine amelioration of the lot of these poor people, in some ways, perhaps, the most helpless class of any in this country, may be effected by the Bill which my noble friend has introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My
1010
Lords, I feel so strongly the great importance of the new departure which this Bill involves that I am tempted to say a few words before the discussion closes. But let me, at the outset, explain that I have no intention of marring the harmonious reception which the Bill has met with from both sides of the House. If we were called upon to vote aye or no upon the Second Reading of this Bill, I should unhesitatingly vote in favour of the Second Reading, and I go further and say that I should regret to see any amendment introduced into it which might have the effect of impairing its efficiency.
There are, I suppose, two questions which present themselves to us this evening—first, are the evils of that which we commonly speak of as the sweating system so great as to require treatment by legislation; and, secondly, is the particular remedy proposed in this Bill the remedy most appropriate to the case? The first question we can only answer in the affirmative. I think it is just that the public should be reminded that it was in this House twenty years ago that a Member of it—Lord Dunraven—first called attention to this matter. The report of his Committee, although it led to no result at the time, is referred to by the recent Committee as one of the most important documents which came before them. That, I think, is sufficient to show that we in this House have never been indifferent to the importance of the question.
When we come to the question of the particular remedy recommended to us by His Majesty's Government there is, I think, rather more to be said. It is a very novel and very drastic remedy, and a remedy which I am glad to think His Majesty's Government intend to apply with very great caution. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill endeavoured to disarm criticisms of that kind by reminding us that it was by no means an unusual thing for the State to interfere between employer and employed. That is quite true, and if I regard this particular proposal with a certain amount of anxiety, which I cannot entirely divest my mind of, it is not because it implies the interference of the State between the employer and the employed, but because it introduces a new kind of interference. The noble Lord, in his opening speech, reminded us that we have had cases where the hours of employment have been interfered with,

1011
and where sanitary conditions have been imposed upon employers of labour. I think he also spoke of the restrictions insisted upon in order to secure the safety of the lives and the limbs of those who are employed, and my noble friend behind me cited as a further illustration the familiar case of the Truck Act. I venture to think that none of those cases are really on all fours with the case of the present Bill.
I think the noble Earl who leads the House grasped the nettle rather more courageously when he said frankly, as I understood him, that this proposal really was an entirely novel one. I can recall only the case of the fair wages clause which we insert in Government contracts as a precedent for the kind of proposals which are now before us, and unless I am much mistaken that resolution of the other House of Parliament has been a very fertile source of trouble to the Departments who have been engaged in interpreting it. Surely there is a great difference between these ordinary cases of interference and the kind of interference to which you are now going to resort. It is not, after all, a very difficult thing to decide whether premises are in a sanitary or insanitary condition, whether sufficient precautions are taken to protect life and limb, or to find out whether an employer pays his employés in coin or in kind. Those are matters which can be disposed of, I will not say without difficulty, but with comparative ease. But when you ask people to lay down what is and what is not a reasonable rate of remuneration you find yourselves upon much more difficult ground. What may be reasonable in one place may not be reasonable in others; what may be reasonable for one person or class of persons may not be reasonable for other persons or other classes; and therefore I do venture to think that this is, as the noble Earl admitted, a new departure and a very serious new departure. I am, therefore, glad that in the sixth clause there is a small modicum of latitude given to the responsible Department to allow wages below the minimum rate in certain cases where it would obviously be a great hardship to prevent people from being employed at those somewhat lower rates.
The sound principle in all these cases is surely that which was laid down by the noble Lord behind me—namely, that it is for the trades themselves to combine and fix, by their own efforts, what shall be the re-
1012
cognised rate of remuneration for any kind of employment. That is, I venture to say, the only really sound principle. We have, of course, recognised, and recognised to the full, the right of trades to organise and to combine, in any way they think proper, for the purpose of bringing about that result. There is one argument, and one argument only for the Bill on the Table, which is that we are dealing with trades which are followed by persons who are so helpless and so miserable in their circumstances that it is not possible for them to combine and organise and protect themselves in the manner in which those protect themselves who are engaged upon fully organised trades and industries. Therefore, upon that representation and upon that representation only, which I conceive to be a perfectly correct one, I am ready to accept the principle of this Bill.
But I do so with two reservations. First, this Bill is to be regarded, as I believe His Majesty's Government desire it to be regarded, as an experiment; and, in the next place, they anticipate from this experiment that they may possibly, by means of these Trade Boards and trade committees, be able to educate the weak and unorganised trades and encourage them after a while to combine for their own protection just as other better organised and more advanced trades have combined. I am very glad that His Majesty's Government in this Bill do not ask Parliament to part with its control over this subject. To my mind it is of the utmost importance that it should be clearly laid down in the Bill that its provisions are not to be extended to any trades except those mentioned in the Bill itself without the explicit concurrence of Parliament. I go as far as saying that if some provision of that kind had not been in the Bill I should have had very great difficulty in giving it my support.
May I say a word as to one or two points which strike me amongst the provisions of the measure? There are two provisions in the sixth and eighth clauses under which, unless I misunderstand them, the onus of proof that the wages paid for piece work are equal to the minimum time rate is thrown upon the employer. That strikes me as a somewhat unusual proposal. Surely it would be enough to leave it to these boards and committees to examine the facts and decide upon them without assuming in a case of that kind that the employer is guilty of a contravention of the Act until he has

1013
been able to prove the contrary. Then I am not sure that I do not rather regret that the Bill did not follow what I understand to be the recommendation of the Committee and restrict its operation to home industries instead of extending it to factories. The mere fact that people are employed in a factory seems to suggest that they might be in a position to combine and to organise themselves, but the noble Lord, who has a right of reply, will, I dare say, be able to satisfy me on that point.
Then, my Lords, I wish to express a hope that those who are responsible for the operation of this Bill will watch very carefully over its effects. It seems to me that it may occasion very serious hardship to people whom we should be very sorry to see suffering in consequence of these well-intentioned efforts. Is it not the case that under this Bill some of those who have depended for their livelihood upon what is called a sweated industry may find themselves obliged to choose between badly-paid work and no work at all? I know that His Majesty's Government have the authority of the Committee for saying that if the effect of their legislation should be to annihilate a particular trade the work of the persons employed in that trade will be diverted into other channels. But are we quite sure there will always be other channels into which their work will be diverted? That seems to me, in days when unemployment is rife throughout the country, a somewhat sanguine-expectation on the part of the Committee. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I thought, was not quite consistent in his treatment of that part of the case. He told us rather confidently that in the view of His Majesty's Government it was not likely that any trades would be crushed out, but then he added that in some cases we should be well rid of a trade which was carried on under particularly deplorable circumstances, and no doubt he was aware that in that view he had behind him the opinion of the Committee, because the Committee certainly stated that it was better that some branches of industry should be abandoned altogether than that they should be carried on under conditions of excessive toil and miserably inadequate earnings. I think there is a great deal to be said for the view of the Committee, but my point is this, that if this should be the result of the passing of the Bill, you will have to look forward to a great deal of at any rate temporary hardship and suffering, and I trust
1014
that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to deal with it should it arise.
My noble friend behind me (Lord Ampthill) very naturally could not resist a little excursion into the regions of Tariff Reform. The subject, no doubt, is a very tempting one in connection with this and other measures for which His Majesty's Government have been responsible. I will not at this period of the evening follow him on to that ground. I will merely say that I think it would reassure a good many people if the noble Lord who will reply to me were able to tell us that, at any rate so far as Government contracts are concerned, the responsible Departments will satisfy themselves that they do not transfer their custom from this country to other countries where certain commodities which they require are produced under conditions which are indistinguishable from those which we will not tolerate here because they involve what we regard as the sweating of the trade. The noble Lord told us that other countries were moving and that legislation dealing with sweating was imminent on their part, but we do not know that the legislation has been actually had yet, and I do think that some general assurance on these points would be a not very unreasonable one to expect. All that I would say upon that branch of the question is this, that I note with considerable satisfaction the admission on the part of the Government which runs through the whole of this Bill, that in dealing with these questions we have to think of something more than the mere volume of our trade and the amount of profit made by those engaged in it. There are other considerations, and I regard this Bill as a very important admission that what is more important than the mere volume of our trade and the profits made by our traders is that those employed should receive reasonable remuneration for their labour, that they should be sure of regular employment, and that they should follow that employment under sound and healthy conditions. With these few observations I gladly give my vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, I have a right of reply, though it is not a right which I should wish to exercise in view of the very favourable and flattering reception which the Bill has received. As the representative of the Department

1015
in which this Bill originated that reception has naturally been most gratifying to me and it will be equally gratifying to the Government in general. The noble Marquess raised three points on which he asked for answers. In the first place, he dealt with the fact that the onus of proof is put upon the employer. That is necessary, because if anything is to be done under these penal clauses this is one of those cases in which the onus of proof must be placed on the accused. The only proof in a case of this kind would come from the keeping of books. If the employer did not keep books there would be no proof one way or the other as to the wages he had paid.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There would be the oath of the worker as to the wages paid.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I am dealing with it from the point of view of the employer. The employer can have absolute proof of the wages he has paid by keeping books, and if he does not choose to do so he is not taking advantage of the obvious possibilities of the situation. Then the noble Marquess dealt with the inclusion of factories in this Bill, and expressed regret that the Bill had not been restricted in its operation to home workers. It was not possible to do that efficiently, because home work and factory work are in certain trades so much mixed up that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle them, and because there are many cases in which factory workers are paid, and certainly could be paid, wages which would be lower than the minimum fixed for home workers. Home workers would then be legislated out of existence altogether, and
1016
instead of benefiting home workers we should really be doing them an injury by such a proceeding. The noble Marquess next alluded to my statement that we did not think it likely that any trade would be crushed out of existence by this Bill, and he contrasted it with another statement I made that there were certain trades which would be no loss if they were crushed out of existence. The explanation really lies in this. When I said that no trade would be crushed out of existence I was alluding to the four trades actually in the Schedule. I alluded to the support which has been given to the Bill by the members of those trades and said I thought this showed that they were confident that their trades would not be injuriously affected. There are, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has pointed out, certain moribund trades which are carried on at present perhaps almost at a loss, and which might conceivably be crushed out. In those circumstances it is believed that the people working in those trades would receive employment in the factories which would take the place of the obsolete methods under which those trades are now carried on, and on the whole, perhaps, as my noble friend has pointed out, the kindest thing to these people would be that those trades should come to an end. I wish to express again my own thanks and the thanks of the Government for the favourable reception your Lordships have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.