Sitting of 12 June 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Burgh and Parochial Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund (Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Burgh and Parochial Schoolmasters Widows Fund (Scotland)." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
Railway Bills (Group 1),
Sir Ivor Herbert reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the City and South London Railway Company to enlarge their railway tunnels; to raise further money; and for other purposes." [City and South London Railway Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Central London Railway Company to construct new railways; to authorise agreements between that company and the London and South Western Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Central London Railway Bill [Lords.]
City and South London Railway Bill [Lords],
Central London Railway Bill [Lords.]
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Porthcawl and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Isle of Wight Central Railway (Godshill Transfer) Bill [Lords],
Westminster Hospital Bill,
Reported without Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Swansea Harbour Bill [Lords],
Reported without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords],
Reported without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 6th June, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners under the Act, entitled the National Health Insurance (Representation of Approved Societies) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
Ordered [17th April] for an Address for Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and instead thereof:—
Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Agricultural Land), Address for "Return of the Agricultural Land administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in parishes in which they own ten acres or more of agricultural land, setting out the amount of land as administered in each county and the parish in which it is situated."—[Mr. Winfrey.]

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 TO 1908.
Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879, 1884, and 1908, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations from the 1st day of January, 1912, to the 31st day of December, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 202, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Statement showing—

(1) An estimate of the Sums receivable by the Education (Scotland) Fund for the year 1913–14, of the Expenditure there from under Section 16 (1) (a) to (f) of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and of the Balance available for Allocation under Section 16 (2) of that Act;

(2) The provisional allocation of such Balance in accordance with the terms of the Department's Minute of 28th June, 1912

[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Egyptian Government (Arrest of Foreign Subjects).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it has been the practice for Powers desiring the extradition of politicals from Turkey to base their claims upon Capitulation privileges or upon other treaty rights; and whether he can state, as regards Russia, what has been the practice previously adopted; and (2) whether there is any precedent in Russia's own action or in that of any other Power having Capitulatory privileges with Turkey for Consuls extraditing their nationals for alleged political offences committed outside the Turkish Dominions and inside the Turkish Dominions; and, if so, can he give references to the cases?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): No question of extradition arises. Extradition implies executive action by the Government, or legal procedure in the Courts, of a country by which an alleged criminal who has taken asylum there may be recovered. But as I have explained to the House in previous answers under the Capitulations no administrative or legal procedure by the Egyptian Government or Courts is necessary and therefore I am not in a position to say what foreign countries may have in past years in the exercise of their extra-territorial rights, recovered their own subjects or citizens through the intermediary of their own Consuls or Courts in the Ottoman Dominions or for what offences, whether political or otherwise. I can only say what the position of this country would be should we desire to recover a criminal from the Ottoman Dominions. Our claim would arise under the Capitulations, and the Statute which would give our officers power to act is the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881, which has been applied to the Ottoman Dominions by Order in Council. That Statute does not distinguish between political and other offences. I may add that the letter from Lord Cromer in the "Times" this morning gives a case of Russian action in January, 1907, which appears to be a precedent such as the hon. Member asks for. And I would draw attention to a sentence quoted there from Lord Cromer's annual report for 1906 (Command Paper 3394). "It must therefore be understood that under the regime

  1757
  of the Capitulations political offenders who are not accused of any offence at common law are liable to be deported from Egypt, and that the fact of a British garrison being in occupation of the country in no degree lessens the liability." The Capitulations entail all sorts of inconvenience, but until they are abolished or modified they must be complied with.
  Mr. MACDONALD: May I take it from the statement made in the "Times" this morning that if my right hon. Friend had seen any reason for interfering, or had power to interfere, it would have rested with him to make that interference?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. He asks, whether, if we had power to interfere, it would have rested with me to do so.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Supposing the Capitulations had not debarred the Egyptian Government from taking action, would action have been taken at the instance of my right hon. Friend?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not see that I can answer a hypothetical question of that kind. Our position in Egypt is that of being in occupation, and we require the Egyptian Government to accept our advice as to matters on which we are in a position to offer it.
  Mr. MACDONALD: In view of the reply perhaps it will be more convenient to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, to-night.
  Mr. MORRELL: With reference to previous answers may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that the precedent Lord Cromer quotes is not a real precedent for this reason. On that occasion the Russian prisoners were arrested by the Egyptian police and were charged with an actual offence against Egyptian law, whereas in this case a man is arrested by the Egyptian police at the instance of the Russian Consul for no offence whatever against Egyptian law?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not, believe it was under Egyptian law at all. I have told the House what Lord Cromer said in his report for 1906. In his letter in to-day's "Times" he quotes the following passage:—
  "Towards the end of January. 1907, three Russians were arrested at Alexandria under grave suspicion of having conspired to blow up a Russian ship then
  1758
  lying in that port. Under the rights conferred by the Capitulations, the Russian Consular authorities demanded that the prisoners should be handed over to them, with a view to their being sent for trial to Russia. The legality of the demand did not admit of doubt. The obligation of the Egyptian authorities to comply with it was equally certain."
  Mr. MORRELL: Is that not merely Lord Cromer's own dictum. It is not a precedent?
  Sir E. GREY: It is a statement of what the Capitulations are. The hon. Gentleman asks me to undertake the responsibility of interfering between foreign Consuls and their own nationals. That is a grave extension of responsibility which I cannot undertake.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be present when the question is raised this evening?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot promise that I will be present. Even if I were present, I could say nothing further than I have already said, that I have no responsibility for cases of this kind.

  WAR IN BALKANS.

    SCUTARI GARRISON.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the deatchment of officers and men landed from the Fleet for garrison duty at Scutari is to be replaced by a military force from Malta; if the other Powers are taking a similar course and replacing their sailors at Scutari by soldiers; and, if so, who will be placed in command of the forces there when the Admiral leaves?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware that other Powers are taking a similar course. Vice-Admiral Burney remains in his present international office, and the question of his successor does not therefore now arise. The exchange of personnel now being made is simply a matter of convenience and does not make any change in policy.

    MEDIATION.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any offer of mediation has been made by the Great Powers in regard to the subjects of difference between the Balkan Allies; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of making an offer of mediation, with a view to the interests of European peace and the economic prosperity of the Balkan States?
    Sir E. GREY: My hon. Friend has no doubt seen in the Press that under a treaty between Bulgaria and Servia there is provision for the submission of certain differences to the arbitration of Russia. He will also have seen the appeal and the warning addressed by the Emperor of Russia to the Kings of Bulgaria and Servia. It is most earnestly to be hoped that the advice thus given may be accepted. It is impossible to express too strongly the feelings of disappointment and disapproval with which an outbreak of war between the Balkan States, so lately Allies, would be regarded by public opinion generally. It would alienate all the sympathy in Europe which has hitherto been an important contributory factor in securing an attitude of neutrality and noninterference on the part of the Great Powers, and the Balkan States must themselves be aware that if they were to fight with each other respecting the fruits of victory, they might risk what they have hitherto gained in the war with Turkey.

    Egypt (Post Office).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a complaint published in the "Egyptian Mail," and signed by I. Fisher, of Alexandria, that his letters and papers are retained in the post office and handed over to the Russian Consul; whether this is with the consent of the Egyptian Government; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Sir E. GREY: I have no information on this matter, but will inquire.

    Chinese Loans.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government exercised any and what control over the price to be paid to the Chinese Government for the bonds recently issued, or whether it was left to the determination of the British group, in consultation with the rest of the bankers of the international group, to fix the price to be paid to the Chinese Government?
    Sir E. GREY: The minimum price payable to the Chinese Government was settled between them and the international group of bankers without the intervention of His Majesty's Govern-
    1760
    ment. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the loan agreement signed recently between the Chinese Government and the quintuple group of bankers confers any special privileges upon the bankers in regard to future loan business; and, if so, what is the nature and extent of such privileges?
    Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to wait until he can himself examine the terms of the Agreement, which will shortly be laid before the House.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an agreement between Russia and China with regard to Mongolia was initialled on the same day that the quintuple loan was signed; and whether the membership of Russia in the quintuple group of bankers is without connection with political considerations?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies returned respectively to the hon. Member for North Westmeath on 7th November last and to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 27th March last. The operations of the quintuple group have had nothing to do with political considerations of the kind mentioned in the question.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the Government proposes to continue exclusively to support the Hong Kong and Shanghai Corporation and its associates in connection with the issue of future direct loans to the Chinese Government, or loans arising out of contracts for the construction of railways and similar undertakings?
    Sir E. GREY: The future policy of His Majesty's Government is now under consideration, but I can make no statement at present.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay the correspondence connected with the Chinese loan agreement, in continuation of China, No. 2, of 1912 [Cd. 6446]?
    Sir E. GREY: Further Papers will be laid in due course.

    Secondary Education (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Grant of £40,000 for secondary education promised for last year will still be available; and, if not, will the Grant for future years be increased so as to recoup Ireland for the loss she has suffered?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I should be sorry to say that this Grant was not available. I certainly cannot hold out hopes that it will be increased.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary when he proposes to give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the delay in making the promised Grant of £44,000 per annum towards secondary education in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I quite recognise that this matter cannot stand over much longer, and as soon as ever a decision has been arrived at I will inform the House what it is. As to an opportunity for discussion I cannot answer.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary when the Grant of £40,000 per annum for secondary education in Ireland was first promised; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the conditions then suggested; and will he explain the cause of the delay and the loss which Ireland has suffered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I stated in the House on the 31st July last that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed to allow me to have this sum of £40,000 for the improvement of the position of secondary teachers in Ireland, to be distributed in a way to be settled by me in consultation with the proper authorities in Ireland. A draft scheme for the distribution of the Grant was published in the "Times" and in the Irish newspapers on the 10th September last, where anyone who wishes can see it. I am still in communication with educational authorities in Ireland as to the details of the scheme, and no useful purpose will be served by laying a copy of the original draft on the Table of the House.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it a fact that as a result of the opposition Ireland has lost £40,000 already?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The matter is still under very careful discussion, and I am still hopeful to be able very soon to inform the
    1762
    House that a satisfactory agreement has been come to whereby this very considerable sum of money would be secured for the purpose named, but at the present moment it is in peril.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any hope that an arrangement will be come to within a reasonable time, because we have already waited twelve months, and we should not be asked to wait any longer?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot expect the House or anybody else to be content not to know what has happened, and therefore I hope very shortly, in a few days or weeks, to be able to say that. I am fully alive to the importance of the matter.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the number of persons in county Kerry receiving an old age pension at the end of the year 1910; and how many who had been previously receiving pensions were disqualified on questions raised by the pension officers since the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1911?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The number of old age pensioners in county Kerry at the end of 1910 is not known; but three months later, i.e., at the end of March, 1911, the number was 9,047. The information asked for in the last part of this question is, I fear, not available, as no separate record of such cases is kept.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Local Government Board are still determined to deprive Edward Prunty, Aghaward, Ballinalee, of the old age pension to which by age and circumstances in life he is entitled; whether he is aware that three different times the local sub-committee have passed this man's claim only to have their decision upset by the local pension officer, who is neither an expert nor a professional valuer; and will the Board accept evidence of value if tendered by Mr. William Stephenson, J.P., a large farmer and auctioneer in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The pension committee have on three occasions granted a pension of 5s. a week to Prunty, but the claims have been disallowed by the Local Government Board on the grounds that his means exceed the statutory limit. The pension officer has no authority to award or refuse a pension, and his estimates are

    1763
    not binding on the Board, who formed their own independent estimate from the particulars of stock and crops on the farm, which contains fourteen acres of fair land. Before determining his last claim, the Board had inquiry made as to the claimant's circumstances by one of their own inspectors. As the case is now closed the Board cannot consider any further evidence except in the event of an appeal being lodged in connection with a further claim, when all evidence furnished would be duly considered.
    Mr. FARRELL: May I take it that the evidence of Mr. Stephenson will be accepted or at least considered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly it will be considered; but I will accept no man's evidence without an opportunity of considering it.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether pension officers, in estimating the means of applicants for old age pensions in England, value the maintenance of the artizan classes at from 3s. to 5s. per week; whether the same officers value maintenance in Ireland, where the standard of living is considerably lower, at from Ss. to 12s. per week; and whether this is done with the authority or by the direction of the Treasury?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No instructions have been issued to pension officers directing them to assign a particular value to maintenance in framing their estimates of means for old age pension purposes. The rule in force throughout the United Kingdom is that such estimates should be made by reference to all the facts bearing on the standard of living of the person with whom the claimant resides.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is still satisfied that pension officers in Ireland have acted fairly between old age pension applicants and the Local Government Board in the matter of appeals and that they do not in many cases err, especially in the matter of valuation of means; and will he arrange that in disputes in future the evidence of local professional valuers will be accepted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am confident that pension officers in Ireland act fairly between old age pension applicants and the Local Government Board in the matter of
    1764
    appeals, and I do not except those cases in which the officer's estimate of means is not adopted by the authorities with whom the decision rests. An officer would be failing in his duty if he did not exercise his right of appeal when his estimate is less favourable to the claimant than that of the committee. As regards the last part of the question, I have no authority to give directions to the Local Government Board as to the evidence to be accepted in cases submitted to them on appeal.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the agreement between Dowd, a sub-tenant on the farm of P. Mulhern, estate of Mr. O'Connor, at Cruckawn, county Longford, will be given effect to and the sub-tenancy vested in the sub-tenant, the direct tenant, Mulhern, having assented to this settlement?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Timothy Dowd is a sub-tenant of about 1½ acres on the holding of James Mulhern on the estate referred to, which was the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants. The Commissioners decided that the case was not one in which the sub-tenant should be deemed to be tenant for the purposes of sale of the parcel of land in his occupation, and the entire holding has accordingly been vested in Mulhern, subject to the sub-tenancy. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the agreement referred to in the question, and the matter cannot be reopened.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay investing the lands of Caldraghmore, county Longford, estate of George Lemon, deceased, in the tenants; whether he is aware that this is a small estate, with only a few tenants, and there is no obstacle as to title or the like in the case; and will he now direct that the estate be vested forthwith in these few tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given to identify this estate as the subject of proceedings for sale before them under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay in concluding the arrangement made with the landlady's representative for the sale and division of the lands of Toneymore, Shirley Ball estate, county Longford,

    1765
    amongst the uneconomic and landless people of that district; whether nearly five years have elapsed since this matter was settled; and will he now request the Estates Commissioners to conclude the transaction?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the owner has included in the proceedings some 137 acres of untenanted land situate on the townlands of Toneymore and Abbeylara for sale to the Estates Commissioners. The estate is on the principal register of direct sales, and, having regard to the claims of other estates, the Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached, and they have no power to deal with it until it is so reached.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the price which the Estates Commissioners were prepared to offer Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., for the lands of Coolcraft, North Longford; whether he is aware that this landlord has declared he was willing to sell and that the price only remained to be settled; what was the report of the inspector in the case; and will he now request the Commissioners to reopen the negotiations in order to allay local feeling in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It would be contrary to the Estates Commissioners' practice to make any statement as to the price which they were prepared to advance for the purchase of lands which have not been acquired by them, or to disclose the contents of their inspectors' reports, which are furnished for the confidential information of the Commissioners.
    Mr. FARRELL: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Commissioners regard this matter as closed and will take no further action?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think that that is so.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have yet considered the report of their inspector on his recent inspection of the Massy estate; whether they must conduct any further negotiations with the Land Judge before fixing the terms of purchase with the tenants; is he in a position to state what these terms will be; and what consideration is being given to the claims of evicted tenants on or in the neighbourhood of this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet considered their inspector's report on this estate. Further negotiations with the Land Judge will be necessary before fixing the terms of purchase, and the Commissioners are not therefore in a position to say what these terms will be. The claims of evicted tenants will be considered by the Commissioners when they are dealing with the property if acquired by them.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that it is most desirable, in the interests of the evicted tenants, small holders, and labourers of the district, that the demesne and untenanted lands on the Massy estate, near Macroom, should be acquired for purposes of distribution; whether the Estates Commissioners have made any representations to the Land Judge claiming that all the property on this estate should be placed at their disposal; and, if not, will they immediately do so, having regard to the importance of the interests affected; and whether they will at the same time take steps to have the holdings on the town portion of this estate sold to the occupying tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not made any representations to the Land Judge on the subject of the sale of the mansion house and demesne lands and they are not prepared at this stage of the proceedings now pending before them in connection with the sale of the agricultural portion of the property to make any statement as to what action, if any, they may take in the matter.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners will take immediate steps to ascertain whether Henry Good, a tenant on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, at Ballyvourney, is now willing to consent to a sale, on terms already arranged, to his sub-tenant Cornelius Sheehan; whether Sheehan has all along been willing to purchase at the price fixed by the Commissioners; and whether they have communicated to the tenant Good their decision to dismiss the proceedings for the sale of his holding unless he comes to terms forthwith with his sub-tenant?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners informed Good's solicitor some time ago that if his client was not prepared to consent to the purchase by Sheehan of the lands in his occupation as sub-tenant

    1767
    they would consider the advisability of excluding Good's holding from the sale, and they have now intimated to him that if Good refuses to signify his consent within a reasonable period the Commissioners will dismiss the proceedings for the sale of the holding. The Commissioners are aware that Sheehan is willing to purchase at the price estimated by them.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked whether the Estates Commissioners are unable to state the area of land now occupied by evicted tenants or tenants who have been given new holdings in county Cavan under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and to the latest date available in 1913?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners, in compliance with Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, publish quarterly Returns of reinstated evicted tenants which are presented to Parliament, and contain the particulars prescribed by Statute, and I cannot ask them at a time of pressure such as this to take their staff away from their current work to compile the special Return asked for by the hon. Member.
    Mr. KENNEDY: What length of time would it take to have this small item of information supplied?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid that whatever time it would take would be taken away from business of the most pressing importance.

    Ashtown Estate, King's County.
    Mr. HAVILAND-BURKEasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to his statement that no constable was seriously hurt in the recent affray on grazing lands on the Ashtown estate, near Clonbullogue, King's County, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the batoning of the people on that occasion; whether he is aware that two young men were so severely injured by the constabulary that their lives were in imminent danger and their clergy called for to administer the rites of their Church; and why a special police force, quartered on this district for the benefit of graziers owing to the protracted delay of the Estates Commissioners in proceeding with the purchase of the Ashtown estate, was unable to maintain order against an unarmed crowd without such an unnecessary display of violence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: On the occasion referred to a crowd of 300 persons attacked eighteen police who tried to prevent them driving the cattle off the lands referred to, and the police were obliged to use their batons in self-defence. I am not aware that any of the crowd which attacked the police were so injured as to endanger their lives.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint himself with the history of this estate, and when he has acquainted himself with the history of this estate from which fifty tenants were evicted by a former landlord, will he use his best offices with the Estates Commissioners to have it purchased, and the representatives of the former evicted tenants put back on their own holdings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is another matter. I am most concerned at the present moment with the protection of the police who in this particular matter were subjected to a very savage attack which I am glad to say they repelled with considerable vigour.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the landlord of this estate, Lord Ashtown, now a bankrupt, and would it not be in the interests of the estate to get some ready money?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I quite appreciate that point.
    Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made to confirm the statement which I have made, that the Catholic curate was called in to administer the rites of the church to two young men who were nearly killed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All I know is that 300 people attacked eighteen.

    Sugar Beet.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware that sugar beet can be profitably grown in Ireland; and, if so, whether the Department will take some steps to encourage the growth of the crop in that country?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department have for some time been carrying out experiments regarding the cultivation of sugar beet, and good crops have been grown in connection with these experiments, which are being continued. If, however, the prices hitherto offered by

    1769
    sugar factories continue as at present, the Department would not, as a result of their trials, be justified in recommending generally the cultivation of beet in preference to other root crops
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount annually expended on the importation of sugar beet from Germany and Holland into these countries?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The imports of sugar beetroots into the United Kingdom are not of sufficient importance to be separately recorded in the official trade Returns of this country, but according to the official Returns for 1911 of Germany and the Netherlands, no beets were exported in that year from the former country to the United Kingdom, and only eleven tons from the latter.

    Ceylon.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that the Government, of Ceylon on 7th May refused when requested to forward to the Secretary of State for the Colonies a formal protest lodged by the Colombo Total Abstinence Central Union against the new Government order prohibiting headmen from belonging to temperance societies; and what steps he proposes to take to insure that in future such representations of Colonial opinion on important matters of public interest are not withheld from him?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware of the facts of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. The regulations for His Majesty's Colonial Service lay down that any communication from individuals in a Colony addressed to the Secretary of State through the Governor are to be forwarded by the Governor with all reasonable despatch, together with such report as their contents may seem to require. I have no reason to suppose that any steps are required to ensure that this rule is carried out by the Government of Ceylon.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Governor refused to pass on this representation?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not know the facts yet; but I have no reason to think
    1770
    that there was any refusal before a representation had been made in the ordinary course.
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is aware that the Excise authorities of Kandy (Ceylon) have recently placed an arrack tavern within thirty yards of the Roman Catholic cathedral and two doors from a girls' school, against the almost unanimous written protests of the resident occupiers of the neighbourhood; and, seeing that the Report of the two Excise Commissioners on which the new Excise Ordinance is framed recommended that taverns should not be too near any place of religious worship, or public market, or any school, or court house, or similar institution, whether he will either close the tavern or order its removal to a less unsuitable site?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information with regard to the matter, but I will make inquiry of the officer administering the Government.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether an official investigation into the truth of complaints made by suffragists concerning the conditions under which prisoners are removed in prison vans is being conducted; if so, whether the investigation in question has been placed by the Prison Commissioners in the hands of the Commissioner of Police; whether, having regard to the fact that it was on the authority of the Commissioner of Police he stated on 12th February last that prison vans were not overcrowded, that female prisoners are conveyed in closed compartments entirely separate from the males, and that the sexes are always separated in the prison vans, and of these statements being in direct conflict with sworn statements of the Suffragists, which sworn statements have been forwarded to him, he will entrust the investigation to an independent tribunal and not to the Commissioner of Police, whose statements are challenged; (2) if the investigation into the truth of statements made by suffragists regarding the conditions under which prisoners are removed in prison vans is being conducted in secret, and if the Commissioner of Police who is conducting the investigation has refused to accept first-hand statements from those who have lodged the complaints which are the subject of his

    1771
    inquiry; and (3) if he is aware that the governor of Holloway Gaol told one prisoner that complaints concerning the conditions under which prisoners are removed in prison vans did not concern the prison authorities, and that such complaints must be laid before the Commissioner of Police; that the Commissioner of Police, when appealed to in the matter, said that it did not concern him but must be laid before the Prison Commissioners; that the Prison Commissioners have now called upon the Commissioner of Police to make an inquiry and inform them of what, on his authority, is no concern of his; and that the magistrate at Marylebone Police Court, in reply to similar complaints, said the matter only concerned the Home Secretary; and if he will say who is responsible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The prison vans are supplied by the Commissioner of Police and are in charge of police officers, but in conveying prisoners between the courts and prisons these officers act as agents for the Prison Commissioners, who are responsible for this service. If a complaint relating to his conveyance to or from the prison is made by a prisoner to the Prison Commissioners, they refer it to the Commissioner of Police, who takes statements from his officers and reports to the Prison Commissioners. An inquiry has been made into a complaint addressed by two female prisoners on the 15th May to the Visiting Committee of Holloway Prison, and it has been shown that, if the prisoners' complaint was rightly understood by the Visiting Committee, it was not in accordance with the facts. I find, however, that the statutory declaration made by one of them, which has just been sent to me by my hon. Friend, differs from her complaint as reported by the Visiting Committee, and I propose that further inquiry should be made into the whole matter?
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked if the Home Secretary is aware that Miss Emerson, who was sentenced on the 18th February to two months' imprisonment, and released on 8th April in a state of collapse, was forcibly fed whilst suffering from appendicitis, and is now in such a condition as to require a serious operation; whether forcible feeding is intended to be resorted to under circumstances so painful and so dangerous to life; and, if
    1772
    not, what steps he proposes to take to prevent its repetition under such circumstances?
    Mr. MCKENNA: Miss Emerson, while she was in prison, showed no symptom of suffering from appendicitis and she was not in a state of collapse when released. She did her utmost during her imprisonment to impair her health by refusing food and by other wilful acts, but her weight and general condition were well maintained, and she was not released on grounds connected with her health. I have no information as to her health since her release.

    Sir Victor Horsley.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Home Secretary whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the complaint which he has made to the Royal College of Surgeons against Sir Victor Horsley?
    Mr. MCKENNA: Personally I should have no objection to laying upon the Table of the House a copy of my communication to the Royal College of Surgeons, but, as I have said, it is a matter for their discretion whether or not it should be communicated to Sir Victor Horsley or made public.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask why this is a matter within the discretion of the Royal College of Surgeons, since the complaint emanated from the right hon. Gentleman himself; and whether he can refer me to any precedent of a complaint being made by a Government Department against a professional authority which has not been communicated to the person indicated?
    Mr. MCKENNA: All the facts, I assume, have already been communicated to Sir Victor Horsley by the Royal College of Surgeons.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: In what terms?
    Mr. MCKENNA: The facts, as I explained in a previous answer, were already known to Sir Victor Horsley, and the complaint, as it is called, contained no new charge, nor any charge at all against Sir Victor Horsley. What has happened is this: Sir Victor Horsley made certain complaints against several members of the Royal College of Surgeons, and I, in this House, denied the justice of those complaints, and I have forwarded Sir Victor

    1773
    Horsley's charges, with the documents which I quoted in my answer given in this House.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why should that be done?
    Mr. MCKENNA: Having sent the correspondence and the statements to the Royal College of Surgeons, surely it is within their province to decide whether they will make them public or not. I have merely called their attention to the documents and the statements, every one of which has already been published.

    Poet Laureate.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opinion widely held that the establishment of the office of Poet Laureate has been of advantage neither to the nation nor to literature, he will consider the advisability of abolishing that office?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The question is being considered in all its aspects.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the Prime Minister can state the salary, perquisites, and privileges appertaining to the office of Poet Laureate, and also the exact nature of the duties; whether the Poet Laureate is bound to produce a certain quantity of verse per annum; and whether he will have printed as a White Paper the productions in verse of the Laureates for the last 150 years?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The salary is now £70 a year with an allowance of £27 in lieu of a butt of sack. I do not know that the duties of a Poet Laureate are exactly defined. I am not prepared to accede to the request contained in the last part of the question. Most of the productions referred to can be obtained by those who desire to peruse them.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position of Poet Laureate was established in substitution for the old, ancient, and time-honoured institution of the King's jester, and that the salary is exactly that which was given the King's jester? Will the right hon. Gentleman now re-establish the office of the King's jester?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This time, I think my hon. Friend's history is not quite right.
    Mr. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the claim of the hon. Member for Donegal?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has the Poet Laureate the option to claim a butt of sack or £27?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That was commuted nearly one hundred years ago.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there not an intolerable deal of sack for a ha'porth of poetry?

    Taxes (Collection).
    Mr. CASSELasked if the Prime Minister will state when he proposes to give effect to the undertaking that a Select Committee should be appointed forthwith to inquire into the question of collection of taxes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I presume the hon. and learned Member refers to the Select Committee in regard to the provisional collection of taxes promised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 15th April last at the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill dealing with that matter. I have not forgotten that undertaking, and hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that we were induced to withdraw an Amendment on the promise to appoint a Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTERdissented.

    Imperial Naturalisation Bill.
    Mr. CROFTasked if the Prime Minister will state on what date he proposes to introduce the Imperial Naturalisation Bill?
    Mr. MCKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I cannot fix a date because the final details of the Bill are still the subject of correspondence with the Dominions. When that is concluded, I should be glad to take the earliest opportunity that may present itself for the introduction of this Bill, whether in this House or in another place.

    Bee Disease and Milk and Dairies Bills.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked (1) if the Prime Minister is aware that the ravages of the Isle of Wight bee disease in Scotland, the South of England, and Wales have been more serious during the

    1775
    last twelve months than in any similar period; and whether and, if so, when the Government propose to proceed with the further stages of the Bee Disease Bill; and (2) whether it is proposed to proceed with the Milk and Dairies Bill and carry it through all its stages during the present Session; and, if so, whether, in view of the large number of its Clauses and its probably far-reaching effect upon various classes of the community, he will arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the losses due to the Bee disease during the last twelve months have been serious, but that it is not possible to make any trustworthy comparison with previous years. The Government would be glad to carry the Bee Disease and the Milk and Dairies Bills through this Session, but, unless they can proceed as substantially uncontentious measures, I am afraid there is little prospect of this in the time at our disposal.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey that both Bills are exactly on the same footing as to the prospect of going through this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether they are exactly on the same footing. They stand in the same category.

    Act of Union (England and Scotland).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, which of those provisions of the Acts of Union between England and Scotland which are thereby declared to be essential and fundamental conditions of the Union which have been repealed or modified have been so repealed or modified without the consent of the majority of English representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The sources of information are as readily available to the hon. and learned Gentleman as to me. He can ascertain the facts by research into the pages of history and the Journals of this House.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not been able after research to ascertain any precedent for the violation of an essential fundamental condition of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will say that that fundamental condition no longer exists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all aware to what extent the hon. Member's research has been carried.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was a fundamental and essential condition of the Act of Union that every Scottish professor should sign a confession of faith and that that fundamental and essential condition was repealed in 1830, and as yet I do not see that the Scottish are up in arms against it?
    Mr. CASSEL: That was done with the consent of both parties.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that changes have been made relating to the Church of Scotland without the consent of Scotland?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL CONTRACTS.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government invited any tenders from, or contemplated any contract with, the Mexican Eagle Company for oil during the year 1912; how far negotiations went; and the reason they were never completed?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Competitive tenders for fuel oil were invited both in 1912 and 1913 from the company in question, but the company were not then in a position to offer oil for early delivery to Admiralty requirements. Prolonged experiments have been carried out in recent months with samples of oils from the newer fields of supply, not only from Mexico, but also from Trinidad, California, Persia, and from Home, with the object of widening and diversifying the sources of oil supply. The results are now engaging the persistent attention of the Board of Admiralty, by whom the subject is regarded as of the highest consequence. Proposals, whether by purchase or by forward contracts, for the supply of oil from the Mexican Eagle and other companies are still under consideration; and having regard to the geographical position of Mexico and its strategic communications with this country, partial reliance upon Mexican supplies would appear to be indicated as a necessary feature in any satisfactory solution of the problem.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the Prime Minister to whom this question was addressed—whether he will appoint a Com-

    1777
    mittee to examine the books of Messrs. Montmorency and Company, in view of the published statements that investments have been made?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which clearly requires notice.
    Mr. SWIFT MaCNEILL: May I ask the Prime Minister, arising out of this rather oily, unctuous question—
    Mr. SPEAKERIt seems to me an important matter.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: It is.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then notice should be given.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state the names of the persons or firms, together with the respective dates, quantities, or values for the year 1912, from whom purchases of oil fuel for the Navy were made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the practice of the Admiralty in the public interest not to publish particulars of contracts for important supplies, on which the war efficiency of the Fleet depends. It is regretted that no exception to that rule can be made in the case of the supplies in question.
    Mr. TERRELL: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman objects to publish the names of the persons with whom he has contracted, or the amounts of the contracts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Unless any special circumstances are brought to my notice in this House by some Member of the House I shall decline to depart in any respect from the regular, settled, and established practice of the Board of Admiralty.
    Mr. TERRELL:Is it not customary in a great many cases to publish the names of Admiralty contractors? Why should an exception be made in this case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No exception will be made. The regular practice will be followed without any deviation in one direction or the other.
    Mr. HILLSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a contract for the supply of lubricating oil for use on Gnome motors has recently been given to a firm who supply Gnomol;
    1778
    that such oil when used some months ago, gave unsatisfactory results and was found to be dangerous, so that certain naval aviators refused for this reason to use it; whether the only safe oil is pure castor oil; and will he cause inquiries to be made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that several brands of castor oil for lubricating purposes have been under trial in the Naval Air Service, and purchases have been made of those descriptions (including Gnomol), which have been found to give the most satisfactory results in actual use. Several criticisms of various brands of castor oil, including so called "pure castor oil," have been received from time to time. At the present time Gnomol is giving the most satisfactory results. No special inquiries appear necessary as the naval aviators are in close touch with the Admiralty purchasing Departments on this matter.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will this question come within the purview of the Committee now sitting on the supply of oil fuel for the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The question of lubricating oil for aircraft is a very small one, and does not raise any of the difficult problems connected with the supply of oil fuel for the Navy.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman notice the transfer of interest from Marconis to "Oils"?

    NEW EXPLOSIVES COMPANY, STOWMARKET.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the New Explosives Company, at Stowmarket, are contractors to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether the Fair-Wages Clause is being observed by the company?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no complaint has been received by the Admiralty in regard to the wages paid by the firm.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any official information has reached him that the advance which he announced in the construction of the three "Dreadnoughts" has been unfavourably received in

    1779
    Germany; and whether there are any indications of a German agitation for a new building programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have no official information on either of the points raised.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister, whether, having regard to the many interests and the important issues involved in the proposed National Insurance Act Amending Bill, he will arrange that the Bill shall be considered after its Second Reading in a Committee of the Whole House?
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prime Minister intends to send the National Insurance Act Amending Bill to a Grand Committee, a Standing Committee, or a Select Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is the intention of the Government to send the Bill to a Standing Committee.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the Bill being sent upstairs in order to avoid the necessity of a Dissolution?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great expectations have been aroused with regard to this Amending Bill by his own letter to the electors of Altrincham; and, in view of the importance of the matter, is it not desirable that every Member of the House should be in a position to take part in the discussion of Amendments?
    The PRIME MINISTERI said nothing in my letter to Altrincham that I had not already said in this House.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Having regard to the number of persons who are desirous of suggesting Amendments, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time of the House would be really economised by Amendments being made in Committee rather than on the Report stage?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised we think this is the best course.

    SICKNESS CLAIMS (MALINGERING).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he has seen the report of a meeting of the Kent Insurance
    1780
    Committee on 29th May last, wherein it is stated that the rate of sickness experienced was more than double that expected, and that in a district near Maid-stone the rate went up to four times that expected; if so, what steps he proposes to take for the protection of approved societies; (2) whether the Insurance Commissioners have received representations from the approved societies under the National Insurance Act as to the prevalence of malingering, if so, whether he proposes to appoint medical referees for the purpose of checking malingering; and (3) whether the sickness claims received by approved societies under the National Insurance Act are in excess of those expected on the basis of the Government actuaries' calculations; and, if so, whether the excess arises from malingering?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is too early at present to make any generalisation as to the actual claims for sickness benefit in comparison with the actuaries' estimates. I have seen a report of the meeting of the insurance committee to which the hon. Member refers, from which it appears that references were made to the rates of sickness in certain areas, but I am not aware that any general official statistics were available. As was to be expected, there is evidence that the claims on some societies, and in some districts, are above the normal, but such evidence as is at present available for the country as a whole does not point to any general excess over the actuarial expectations. The primary responsibility for checking malingering must, of course, rest upon the approved societies who administer the sickness benefit. The whole question, however, including the appointment of medical referees, is now receiving the most careful consideration of the Commissioners, who are obtaining information as to the character and extent of the problem.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it proposed to introduce any Insurance Act Amending Bill touching this matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot give any answer to that question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If a society's sickness experience largely exceeded the estimate, would there be an early valuation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, in such circumstances the valuation would be expedited.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a married woman, not an insured person, who is deserted by her husband just before the birth of her child, can obtain the maternity benefit; and, if not, whether he will deal with this matter in the forthcoming National Insurance Act Amending Bill?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, I think that the society, which has discretion to administer the benefit otherwise than in cash, would be justified in using the money to make provision for the wife. The question of proposing a Clause in the Amending Bill to enable the society to treat the benefit, in cases of desertion, as in every respect a benefit for the wife has been under consideration.

    HEALTH INSURANCE OFFICERS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received representations from health insurance officers under the National Insurance Act as to their remuneration of £80 per annum, out of which they have usually to purchase food away from home; whether a number of these officers are married; and whether they are virtually debarred from promotion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part in the affirmative, but the scale of salary was well known to candidates before they accepted appointments. In reply to the third paragraph, I may say that they are not debarred from promotion, but they were informed before appointment that they would not ordinarily be eligible for promotion to the inspectorate, though promotions might be made in special cases of exceptional merit.

    SUPPLY OF MEDICINES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked (1) whether any decision has yet been come regarding the appointment of inspectors of pharmacies; and (2) whether the auditors appointed to audit the accounts sent in by chemists who have supplied medicine under the provisions of the National Insurance Act will have to possess a special knowledge of the price of drugs and the business of a chemist?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I propose to take Questions 65 and 66 together. The matters referred to in the two questions are under
    1782
    consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement in regard to them.

    CASUAL DOCK LABOURERS.
    Mr. DIXONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in any amending Bill to the National Insurance Act he, will take into particular consideration the case of the casual dock labourers who, from the nature of their work, are often out of employment through no fault of their own, and find it difficult to keep up their weekly insurance payments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The problem to which the hon. Member refers is receiving the careful consideration of the Government and the Insurance Commissioners.

    Civil Services (Royal Commission).
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Civil services may be expected to issue an interim Report of their proceedings and recommendations, so far as these relate to the Civil Service proper; and if he will inquire when evidence will be taken concerning the legal branches of the public departments in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: With regard to the first part, of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness yesterday. I understand that it, is not possible to say at present when evidence will be taken with regard to the legal departments.

    Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage Works, Birmingham.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lock-out now in force at the works of the Metropolitan Amalgamated Carriage works at Birmingham is due to the breach of an agreement by the Engineers and Allied Trades Societies Federation, made between it and the company; and whether he can take any steps to impress upon the members of the workers' union that the lock-out consequent upon this breach of agreement is causing hardship to innocent men and their families?
    Mr. BUXTON: I understand that statements have been made to the effect that one of the questions at issue in the present dispute between the Metropolitan

    1783
    Carriage, Wagon and Finance Company and their workpeople relates to an alleged breach of an agreement. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury on Monday last, I understand that a meeting between the parties will shortly take place.

    United States Import Duties.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average incidence of the import duty levied in the United States on the class of goods principally exported to that country; and what change would be introduced if the proposed new tariff were passed into law?
    Mr. BUXTON: The official Returns of imports into the United States from individual countries are not published in sufficient detail to enable the ad valorem incidence of the duties on imports from the United Kingdom to be calculated. Even were such a calculation practicable it would be impossible to foresee the extent to which the changes now proposed in the United States tariff would affect the magnitude of the imports of the different classes of goods from this country. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to give the information desired.
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask whether the United States proposed tariff has been submitted to the Commercial Intelligence Committee for examination?
    Mr. CROFT: Do I understand that the Board of Trade has not inquired into what the difference would be?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have given the reasons why I am unable to answer, but if any hon. Member desires a reply to any question I shall be pleased to give it on notice.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the President of the Board of Trade what would be the average incidence of the Import Duty levied in the United States on British exports as represented by the proposed tariff recently introduced in the House of Representatives and calculated on a basis similar to that employed in the Second Fiscal Blue Book, p. 295?
    Mr. BUXTON: I will have the necessary calculations made, and will communicate again with the hon. Member when the results are available

    Census of Production.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can explain why in Part III. of the Preliminary Tables of the Census of Production the net output per person employed, based upon the cost of material, the price at which the goods are sold, and the number of persons employed in making and marketing them, is in the case of such trades as hosiery, china, and earthenware £68 only, but in the case of chemicals, coal-tar products, drugs, and perfumery rises to £185, and in the case of ink, gum, and sealing wax to £318; and whether, if such figures are largely affected by the cost of advertisement, he will arrange that in future similar Returns such cost is deducted so that the figures may, in the case of each trade and industry, be judged on a similar basis?
    Mr. BUXTON: According to the revised figures shown in the Final Report of the First Census of Production, the net output per head in the hosiery trades was £61; in the china and earthenware trades, £68; in the chemicals, coal-tar products, drugs and perfumery trades, £183; and in the ink, gum and sealing-wax trades £280. The differences in the rate of net output per head are partially due to the cost of advertising and sales expenses in the two latter groups of trades, but other factors have to be taken into account, and the whole subject is discussed in the section on "Net Output per head of Persons Employed" on pages 12–15 of the General Report (Cd. 6320, Part I.). Under the provisions of the Census of Production Act, 1906, and the Orders and Rules issued by the Board of Trade thereunder, it is not possible to require manufacturers to state, for the purposes of the Second Census of Production, the cost of advertisement, so that the course suggested by the hon. Member is not practicable.

    Loss of Steamship "Veronese."
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the Official Report issued by the Board of Trade of the formal investigation into the loss of the ss. "Veronese," which deals with the conduct of Mr. Ernest Victor Hugo, chief officer, and Messrs. Frederick Martin, boatswain, and William Jay, able seaman, where it is pointed out by the Court that the rescue of the emigrants from their dangerous position, this work entailing

    1785
    danger to life and limbs, was due to the conduct and untiring efforts of Mr. E. V. Hugo, chief officer, ably assisted by F. Martin, boatswain, and W. Jay, able seaman, the court stating that Mr. Hugo was so severely injured during his courageous efforts that he was unable to sit upright whilst giving evidence some ten weeks after the event; and what steps, if any, he is taking in respect to these opinions expressed by the Court?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have already had under consideration the observations in the report to which the hon. Member refers. I fully appreciate the services rendered on the, occasion of the wreck of the "Veronese," and the question of suitably recognising the gallantry displayed by Mr. Hugo and others is being dealt with.

    Railway New Addressing Regulations.
    Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the English and Irish Railway Clearing Houses, respectively, have taken to meet the demand of Irish traders in regard to the new regulations concerning the addressing of packages containing Irish eggs and butter imported into this country; what is the reason for such a delay in a matter so vital to the Irish produce export trade; and whether he will urge English and Irish railway companies alike to revert to the system which has worked so satisfactorily during the last forty years for all concerned?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have forwarded to my hon. Friend copies of letters from which it appears that the Railway Clearing House hope to arrange for the application of the new addressing regulations to Continental traffic, and that, the Irish Clearing House are considering the representations made to them by a deputation from the Irish Egg and Butter Merchants' Association on the 15th May. I am not aware that there has been any undue delay, but I will communicate again with the Irish Clearing House in the matter.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman give us to understand that the railway companies of England and Ireland are prepared to abolish the new regulations in order to bring down foreign produce to the level of Irish at the present time?
    Mr. BUXTON: I would like notice of that question.

    Re-Exports from United Kingdom.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the re-exports from the United Kingdom to foreign countries in 1912 of goods that had been imported into the United Kingdom from India
    Mr. BUXTON: The value of the re-exports in 1912 to all destinations of goods originally consigned to the United Kingdom from India, was £11,730,000, but I am unable to say what proportion of this value represents re-exports to foreign countries and what proportion re-exports to British Possessions.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General when the installation of the trunk telephone in Longford will take place; whether be is aware that the initiation of this work has been promised three different times within the past year; and will he now give a definite promise as to the date of the commencement of the work?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The work in connection with the extension of the trunk telephone system to Longford was commenced early in May, and I hope that it will be completed in August.

    Bovine Tuberculosis.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state how, under the Tuberculosis Order of 1913, bovine tuberculosis with emaciation is being distinguished from Johne's disease in cases where the owner does not consent to the application of the tuberculin test; and how, if no outward symptoms of tuberculosis exist, cattle can be notified as giving tuberculosis milk in the absence of the proposed machinery of the Milk and Dairies Bill, whereby the presence of the disease in milk can, after bacteriological analysis, be traced from the retailer's premises to those of the cattle owner and the particular cow which yielded it?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): No case of difficulty in making a differential diagnosis between tuberculosis with emaciation and Johne's disease has been brought to my notice, but I am advised that the following method may be used for distinguishing the two diseases, namely, by clinical examination, and, if

    1787
    necessary, microscopic examination of scrapings of the mucous membrance of the rectum, or by microscopic and biological examination of the fæces. With regard to the latter part of the question I would point out that, whilst it is, of course, the case that owners of cows may not be able to notify cases of cows giving tuberculosis milk from clinical symptoms, local Acts are already in existence under which cases may be found and dealt with even before the machinery is made generally applicable by the passing of the Milk and Dairies Bill.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it not a fact that the machinery of the Tuberculosis Order, so far as tuberculous milk is concerned, will break down almost entirely in the event of the Milk and Dairies Bill not passing into law?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot admit that. It is true that if the Milk and Dairies Bill is not passed into law these Regulations will not be generally applicable, but will be applicable only in the most important cases.

    House-Fly.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the public expression of opinion on the part of several leading scientists that the house-fly is the medium of conveyance of much infectious disease, especially in urban areas, and that the abatement of the prevalence of this insect pest can only be effected by the removal of stable manure kept in bins and of other similar garbage and filth which afford it suitable breeding places; and, if so, whether his Department propose to take any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Under the Public Health Acts, local authorities have powers with respect to the removal of refuse and for dealing with accumulations of manure and other offensive matters. They are also empowered to make bylaws relating to the deposit and removal of refuse matters, and by-laws of this kind are in force in many districts. The question of the relation between flies and disease has been frequently under the consideration of the Local Government Board, who have made and are continuing a series of investigations with regard to it. In August, 1911, in their circular to local
    1788
    authorities on the prevalence of epidemic diarrhœea amongst children, the Board emphasised the importance of prompt removal of stable and domestic refuse and the prevention of the accumulation of organic matters. I have reason to think that this circular led to much valuable work being done, and I am considering the question of issuing a further circular this summer.

    Bigg Market, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Local Government Board under what Statute or Regulation the Newcastle-on-Tyne Corporation intend to impose tolls upon stallholders in the Bigg Market of that city for standage according to the square foot occupied; can he say what the scale of charges is to be; and when such charges received the sanction of his Department?
    Mr. BURNS: The tolls referred to appear to be certain stallages standages and tolls authorised by Section 19 of the Newcastle Improvement Act, 1892, and sanctioned by the Local Government Board on the 6th ultimo. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the scale of charges.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE AND SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War what is the establishment and present strength of the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The figures are as follows:—

    Special Reserve.

    Officers.

    Men.

    Establishment

    2,882

    75,832

    Strength

    2,294

    59,942

    Territorial Force.

    Officers.

    N.C.O.'s and Men.

    Establishment

    11,253

    301,611

    Strength

    9,326

    241,881

    Mr. CROFT: When were these figures relating to the Special Reserve collected—are they of the present time?
    Colonel SEELY: They are the latest figures we have available. I will let the hon. Member know their date.
    Mr. STANIER: If an officer serves in the Special Reserve and also in the Territorial Force, is he counted twice, or for which is he counted?
    Colonel SEELY: Such cases must be very very rare. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] But it would not affect the figures materially. I will find cut and let the hon. Member know.

    Assam (Lushai Tribes).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in the country of the Lushai tribes under the Government of Assam, any subjects of the Crown live in the condition of serfs, being obliged to serve other persons all their lives unless ransomed by money payment; whether in connection with this status Major Cole, superintendent of the Lushai Hills, in the year 1910, asked Dr. Peter Fraser, of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Foreign Mission, residing at Aijal, to sign an agreement that he would avoid giving expression of his private opinions as to Lushai customs to any Lushai, and that he agreed to leave the Lushai Hills within one month if he broke this agreed promise; whether this agreement was concluded and whether anything has happened since; and if he can state the legislative enactment or ordinance under which such agreements can be made and enforced?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): In the Lushai Hills a custom called "Boi" exists under which retainers, generally paupers, are supported by the chiefs, and in return work for them. These retainers can acquire property, and obtain complete freedom by a money payment. The system is fully described in Colonel Shakespear's recent monograph on "The Lushai Kuki Clans." The superintendent of the Lushai Hills, who is responsible for the peace of the district, having found that Dr. Fraser's action produced such acute discontent as was likely to result either in the murder of this missionary, or in a general rising, directed that his movements should be confined to certain districts, and invited him to sign an agreement of the nature indicated by my hon. Friend. Dr. Fraser refused to sign either this agreement, or an undertaking prepared by the directors of his mission; there the matter rests. Under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Superintendent may direct any person to abstain from a certain act if he considers that such direction is likely to prevent a disturbance of the public tranquillity; and under a regulation in force in the Lushai Hills he can order any person, not being a native, to leave a
    1790
    district if he is satisfied that the presence of that person is injurious to its peace or good administration. The policy of Government is gradually to modify the local customs of these uncivilised people, who, but a few years ago, were fierce and independent savages. The success of this policy is endangered by persons who, with the best intentions, take action likely to provoke an armed rising with its punitive consequences. Dr. Fraser can, by giving the required undertaking, obviate the restriction of his actions considered necessary by the authorities responsible for the peace of the district, whose conduct is fully approved by the Secretary of State.

    Shops Act.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Chief Secretary whether the urban council of Longford have taken no steps to secure the due observance of the provisions of the Shops Act; and whether he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the Longford Urban District Council have taken the first step to enforce the provisions of the Act by appointing an inspector. If further steps are not taken by the council within a reasonable time to put the Act into operation proceedings will be taken to compel them to do so.

    Gorseinon (Glamorganshire) Police.
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to authoritative letters from persons representing a mass meeting numbering over 3,000 persons regarding the alleged attack made by the Gorseinon, Glamorganshire, police upon peaceful inhabitants on the night of the 24th ultimo, at that place; whether his attention has been drawn to the nature or character of the language used by the police in the course of the discharge of their duties to, the inhabitants on that occasion; and whether, in view of the alleged serious injuries inflicted upon certain of the inhabitants by the police, he will cause are immediate inquiry to be made into the matter?
    Mr. MCKENNA: I received a letter and a resolution on this subject, which I have forwarded to the Standing Joint Committee of Glamorganshire, which is the authority having power to deal with any question as to the conduct of the county police. I have no knowledge of the facts,

    1791
    but I have asked the Standing Joint Committee to let me have a report in the matter.

    Mental Deficiency Bills.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a sum of £150,000 a year, together with certain capital expenditure, is being provided out of Imperial sources for the purposes of the Mental Deficiency Bill for England; what similar subsidy is being offered for the purposes of the Scottish Bill dealing with this question; and, calculated upon existing standards, what is the equivalent amount to which Ireland will be annually entitled in the event of those measures becoming law, or of a special Bill being introduced making provision for the needs,of Ireland in this regard?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Exchequer contribution to relieve local authorities in England and Wales of part of the additional burden placed upon them by the Mental Deficiency Bill is limited to £150,000. The corresponding limit under the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Bill is £20,000. The question of extending the provisions of the English Bill to Ireland is still under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. WATT: Is there any estimate as to how much these Bills will actually cost the local authorities over and above the sums from the Treasury?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like notice of that question.

    Members of Parliament (Income Tax).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what object the forms relating to Income Tax have recently been sent to Members of the House of Commons by the Paymaster-General; if any change is contemplated in the method of calculating the Income Tax to be deducted; if a deduction is to be allowed for travelling or other expenses as was done last year; and if the Income Tax Commissioners decide these questions or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The forms have been sent with the usual object of affording an opportunity for claims to be made on account of earned income or for any of the various allowances therein referred to. No change is contemplated in the method of calculating the Income Tax to
    1792
    be deducted, nor in respect of the deduction allowed for travelling and other expenses, but this latter point is under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. The assessments are made by the Income Tax Commissioners for the Department of the Paymaster-General.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no change, notwithstanding the fact that the Controller and Auditor-General calls in question the legality of this allowance of £100?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We are waiting for the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which represents the House of Commons in this matter.
    Mr. FELL: Why did the Paymaster-General send out these forms and not the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the usual way?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like to have notice of that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if he can make any statement about the business of the week?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): To-morrow (Friday) after the Report of the Army, Office of Works, Votes of Ways and Means, we shall put down the House of Commons Offices (Class II., Vote 2), Mercantile Marine (Class II., Vote 9), and the Mint (Class II., Vote 19).
  On Monday and Tuesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  On Wednesday we had meant to take the Second Reading of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill. I understand, however, that the Report of the Marconi Committee will be issued to-morrow, and, as I have given an undertaking to the House that there would be an opportunity for its discussion at the earliest possible moment, I shall be glad, if the House so desires, to reserve Wednesday and Thursday for that discussion. In that event we will take the Temperance (Scotland) Bill on Friday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman proposes for Wednesday and Thursday, I agree with him in thinking that the whole House desires that it should take place as soon as possible. But I do not know whether the minutes of evidence will be available, and I should have thought—and I shall be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me—that hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of seeing the evidence before the discussion takes place.
  The PRIME MINISTERassented.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the evidence will be available?
  Mr. FALCONER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I inform him that the whole minutes of procedure and evidence referring to the branch of the case dealt with in the Special Report will be in the Vote Office, complete, to-morrow at three o'clock.
  The PRIME MINISTER: And the evidence?
  Mr. FALCONER: Including the evidence.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: No!
  The PRIME MINISTER: Are we to clearly understand that that will include the evidence that has been taken?
  Mr. FALCONER: Yes, it will include the evidence, which is already in type.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If that is so, I think the time suggested by the right hon. Gentleman is quite desirable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the evidence will be really available in good time.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to have the evidence, and that we ought to have time to consider it. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Falconer) is right in saying that the evidence will be available to-morrow, I should have thought that Wednesday should do for the commencement of the discussion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree that that is so.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the Prime Minister tell us when the Irish Land Purchase Bill will be introduced? Will he remember the lateness of the Session, and the desirability of our having some knowledge at the earliest possible moment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The subject is in an advanced state of preparation, and the Bill will be introduced without any unreasonable delay.

BILL PRESENTED.
  GROUND GAME (INCLUSION OF DEER) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To include Deer in the Ground Game Acts in Scotland." Presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Mr. Annan Bryce, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Morton, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Price, Mr. Munro, and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 1st July, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

SUPPLY.— [ELEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in the committee
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.— [ELEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14— [Progress.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.— [Class II.— VOTE I7.]
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £189,988, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board." —[NOTE.—£105,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I beg to move, "That Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100.
    I need hardly say that I do not make this Motion out of any personal hostility to the President of the Local Government Board or to the Under-Secretary. Indeed, I am sure many of those who sit upon this side of the House share with me feelings of great admiration for the strong common sense and unfailing courage with which the President of the Local Government Board has dealt for many years with the problems with which he is confronted during his long period of office. When the President of the Local Government Board first assumed office, I think on the first occasion when the reduction of his salary was moved he made a long and very interesting speech covering a great deal of ground, and he wound up with a peroration which greatly impressed the House. He said, "There are all these things to be done"—I am paraphrasing his peroration—"never mind, leave it to me. This Amendment is for the reduction of the salary of the President of the Local Government Board. Give me salary and I will do the work. In the years which have passed the President of the Local Government Board has been true to the text with which he concluded his speech at that time. He has shown great good sense, great courage in facing many a difficult question, but almost invariably when it comes to the suggestions of a solution, he has fallen back upon the old statement of seven years ago, and says, "Leave it to me and I will make things all right." He has had a long tenure of office, and he has had on the whole, I think, a very free hand, and it is rather interesting to some of us who
    1810
    have been so many years in politics, and who are rather interested students of what goes on within the walls of this Chamber, to reflect upon the fact that it is left to what we are told is the most Radical Government we ever had, to find in more than one of its Ministers a most determined autocrat. I think without offence I might say tyrant, that was ever found sitting upon the Treasury Bench, and while I do not think that you can take courage and common sense too far, I think you can take even the most benevolent autocracy too far. My main object in moving this reduction is to ask the Committee to consider whether it does not look as if we had in a great deal of the administration too much of the individual and too little of the Department of which he is the head.
    I had the very great honour and advantage of being for eleven years connected with the Local Government Board as Under-Secretary and as President, and I can safely say that though the distinguished Civil servants of the Crown are as a body capable and efficient, there is no Department in which men have been found during the years that have passed since I went there, now more than twenty-five years ago, who are more devoted to their work and have a more thorough knowledge of their business, or bring to the solution of the problems with which they have to deal more valuable experience or a more thorough fund of knowledge. I have no. personal knowledge of what goes on within the Department now, but I know the Department very well, and many of the prominent officials, and the views they take of those social problems; and looking back as I can over a long period of years, and remembering as I do the various stages of the work of that Department, I cannot help thinking that if to-day they were given a free hand, they would take the same course which they took in those days gone by, and would recommend that this House in regard to certain reforms should ask for subventions or for loans. The part the Local Government Board plays in our local life is very important, very close and may be of great usefulness. I suppose the two sets of laws which are more valuable to our people than any other, and with which the Local Government Board have been most closely connected, are the laws which govern our public health and the laws which govern the erection of houses for the working classes. Now with regard to laws affecting our public health,

    1811
    the Local Government Board has always been since 1875, the supreme, as it is sometimes called, though I think often wrongly, the directing or controlling authority. But anybody who remembers the past, will, I am convinced, agree with me that what really gave the Local Government Board power in regard to the administration of the public health, was the determination of the State to make certain contributions in respect to the salaries of certain local officials, and to give the Local Government Board power to exercise discretion in the appointment of those officials, taking at the same time the responsibility of paying portion of their salaries. It was one of the greatest steps ever taken in connection with this most important branch of local government.
    4.0 p.m.
    In regard to the second question, namely, the housing of the working classes, I really think that the President of the Local Government Board has been guilty of a very great failure in the discharge of his duty as President of the Board. I am not going, of course, to discuss legislation or anything that the President cannot do without legislation, but I am going to call the attention of the Committee to the actual part he has taken with regard to this most pressing question. We have had quite recently introduced into this House two measures from different sides of the House which proposed to enact that certain wages should be paid to agricultural labourers. I do not agree with these proposals. I entirely oppose them, whichever side of the House they come from, not because I regard them as socialistic—I do not care in the least about that kind of objection, if I thought they would effect the object they had in view I would not be opposed to them—I am opposed to them because I believe if enacted they would cause mischief to the working classes. But when you come to housing, there you are on very different ground. I am one of those who believe that the existing condition of things is, and has been for some time, wholly unsatisfactory. I agree with the view put forward by hon. Gentlemen speaking in one of our Debates this Session, that at a very moderate computation you want probably something like 100,000 more decent houses and cottages for the working classes in the country districts than you have now. What about the towns? You have in the towns, notwithstanding all the legislation you passed
    1812
    and all the work done by the municipal authorities, and all the work done by charities, and all the work done by various industrial associations formed for this purpose—you have at the present moment a vast number of homes—it is almost desecration to use the word homes in this connection—there are an enormous number of cottages or dwellings in which it is impossible to expect men, women, and children to live and do their duty by their country and their locality. How is this evil to be remedied? It was suggested in a Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset brought forward that there should be certain alterations in the law and that local authorities should be charged with powers to do certain work, and the State should contribute towards the cost. I know many hon. Members opposite cannot hear a question of this kind discussed without immediately talking about the landlords, and they say, "This is another proposal to give doles to the landlords and an attempt to take a burden which ought to rest upon the shoulders of the owners of the land and place it upon the shoulders of the State." I have said before, and I repeat it now to hon. Members who really hold those views and believe they are well founded, that I should be delighted to support them in asking for the appointment of a Committee, not composed of landowners, but to be drawn from the critics of landowners entirely, to inquire that the true state of the case is as regards the landowners of this country.
    I do not pretend to know precisely and accurately what are the facts throughout the whole of the country, but I have some small knowledge of the country, and I have been a close observer and student of this particular question for a great many years, and I firmly believe that if you take those who are generally called landowners, I mean the large owners, who have perhaps several thousand acres of land in particular districts, if you take their properties you will find two facts are established, one that there are enough cottages for those employed on or about those estates; and, secondly, that those cottages are, as a rule, of an extremely good character. Therefore I deny altogether that any proposal to lighten the burden in connection with cottage building by the local authorities will necessarily involve giving relief to the owners of the land. This question, like almost every other question of social reform which we have

    1813
    now to consider in this House, has altered entirely during the last twenty years by the ordinary progress of events. There is one thing which has done more to alter the conditions than anything else, and that is the invention and cheapening of the bicycle. The bicycle has had more to do with the change in modern rural life than probably anything else that has been invented. What happens now in an ordinary country village? Some hon. Members opposite say that we ought to try to bring the men back to the land and prevent the depopulation of our country villages. I am all for the extension of the ownership of land in small quantities, but you are not going to bring back the labourer by simply telling him you will help him to become the owner of a small quantity of land. The villagers leave the country for the same reason as other men leave, because they think they can better their position and obtain a more cheerful life, and in other ways obtain advantages.
    But some of them do not leave the village in which they were born, and in which they are very glad to live. They continue to live there, and they find an occupation in some neighbouring town eight or nine miles off, and it is the bicycle which has enabled them to do this in the rural districts. A man can now be at his employ easily at six o'clock in the morning some six or seven miles away from his residence, and in this way those living in the villages can find more agreeable employment in the adjacent towns. Not long ago I stood on the outskirts of one of our towns, and I noticed no less than 130 men pass on their bicycles going away to their homes in adjacent villages. Is there any hon. Member opposite so prejudiced against the whole landed system and all landlords as to be prepared to get up and say that it is the duty of the landowners to build cottages for these men who work seven or eight miles away from the villages. The thing is preposterous. If you like to make the building of cottages a remunerative investment, then I have no doubt the landowner will do it as readily as other people; but as things are, and so long as you cannot get an economic rent for the ordinary cottage which you build in the country village, you have no right to expect the men who own the land to build cottages for those who work for other people. This is the problem you will have to deal with. You have to face in this House this changed condition of things. You have
    1814
    got this considerable section of your country population who desire to continue to live where they were born, and where their presence is most desirable for many reasons. You have these men necessarily requiring cottages in which to live. There is not only these men who find their occupation in adjacent industrial centres, but other changes have taken place. Let any man who remembers what the country roads were years ago compare them with what they are now. Our roads are maintained in a totally different way, and I should say that there are eight or ten times the number of roads maintained by the central authority than were maintained under our system of local government thirty years ago. This means that you have a large number of road men employed by the county council who have to be resident in the country villages, for whom houses have to be provided. Is there any justification for asking the landowners to provide these men with cottages?
    There has been in the last thirty years an immense extension of our railway system, and a large number of local railways have been created. This has necessitated the residence of a large number of railway men all over the country districts. Many of these men live in our country villages, and how can you ask that the landowners in those districts should provide houses for these railway men? I am willing to see such a Committee as I have suggested appointed, and I will abide by their decision on this question. I have absolute confidence in their honesty and integrity, and I am certain such a Committee will report upon the facts as presented to them, and, if they report that the landlords have not done their duty, then let them be made to do their duty. I start with the assumption that in the overwhelming majority of cases adequate provision is made for their employés by the owners of the soil, and you cannot ask them to step out into this other field and find cottages for men with whom they have no connections whatever. Who has to make this provision? What is the answer of this House? The answer has been given, through the President of the Local Government Board, that nobody is to do it, nothing is to be done, and you are to stand still. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the answer which has been given to us. We are to stand still in the face of the present state of things. You fold your arms and say you hope for something better in the future.

    1815
    What was the answer given by the President of the Local Government Board the other day? It was to the effect that under the Act of 1909, which he passed, great improvements had taken place. I do not deny for a moment that that Act has done some good work. I think it has, but I think it would have done better work if some of the suggestions made by some of us had been listened to at the time. I do not know what the exact figures are. I can only get figures which are not Government figures, and perhaps the President will forgive me if I differentiate between Government figures and the figures of the Local Government Board, because sometimes we have the most startling figures produced by the right hon. Gentleman, who probably evolves them out of his own brilliant brain as the Debate goes on. There have been a great many inquiries. A great many of us have a certain amount of local knowledge, and I say and challenge contradiction, that while some good has been done, no real movement has been started to deal with this most pressing and this most important of all social problems. The reason why no movement has been initiated is, we are told, because the powers of the Department are confined to giving orders to the local authorities. There never has been a President more prolific in orders to the local authorities. I admit they have been of a peremptory and imperious character. The right hon. Gentleman issues his ukase and expects the local authorities to bow humbly down and worship at his shrine, and carry out all his orders.
    The truth of the matter is that the local authorities are talked about here as if they were mere machines made of wood or steel, set in motion by turning a key, but they are composed of human beings, men very like the President of the Local Government Board. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I cannot join in any suggestion of that kind, because the right hon. Gentleman is a fine specimen of a rugged, determined, strong Englishman, but when these local authorities get imperative orders from Whitehall, telling them they are to do certain things, they entirely disregard those orders, and practically tell the right hon. Gentleman to go to a place far hotter than the one he ordinarily cares to occupy. It is no good the central Department issuing orders in this way. What were the powers of the old authority? There was the power of the central authority
    1816
    and the power of mandamus. Is there anybody in this House prepared to say that the power of mandamus was ever worth a rap to get a local authority to take their view? You have the power of superseding the local authority and of doing the work yourselves, but in how many instances has that power been exercised? What is the one thing that has answered? It is when the central authority has been able to say, "This is your duty; you are better able to do it than we are. You have the local knowledge. You not only know what is required better than we do, but you know how best it can be efficiently and economically done." The duty is a twofold one; it is partly local and partly Imperial. These cottages, for instance, are necessary not as a purely local question. It is perfectly true that these men who work in this town eight miles off might equally well live in that town or on its outskirts, and it is perfectly true that these men who work on the railways or on the roads might live elsewhere, but in the interests of the nation as a whole we want to keep up our village life, and it is to the advantage of the village, of the county, of the locality, and of the community as a whole, that some arrangement should be made by which these people should be able to work where they will, and to retain their residences in this particular neighbourhood. How is that to be done? It ought to be recognised that the responsibility, like the work, is a dual responsibility, and that while the locality should bear its fair share of the cost the State should contribute something. I do not believe that until the State is willing to make some contribution—
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Where is the power for the State to make a Grant-in-Aid at the present time?
    Mr. LONG: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait a moment. There is not the power, and I am arguing that the President of the Local Government Board failed to do his duty as President, because in the exercise of his discretion he could have got this power. That is my answer to the hon. Member; it is not that there is the power now. I know there is not. I am asking the Committee, with great respect, to blame the President of the Local Government Board, because, when faced with this great fact, he did not accept the power which he might have obtained.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that there is to be an opportunity to discuss this proposed legislation, and to show the absurdity of the legislation and the justification of the resistance? Will all that be in order?
    Mr. LONG: On the point of Order, respectfully submit to you, Sir, that it has been the invariable practice on the Estimates to discuss the conduct of Ministers in the decisions at which they have arrived, and which have had their effect upon the policy of the day. If that is not in order, it is impossible to discuss the discharge of their duties by Ministers in any complete form.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has had a long experience of the House and its Committees, and he has been in the position which he is now attacking. He said, in the opening part of his speech, I think, that he was well aware of the rule in Committee of Supply that one must deal with the Minister under his existing power, and I was all along anticipating that he would come to a question where he would show that the President of the Local Government Board had failed to do something within his powers. So far, of course, the discussion is in order, but we ought not to have to-day a renewed discussion of the Bill which was dealt with some time ago.
    Mr. LONG: I need hardly say that I respectfully bow to your ruling which entirely conforms with the views I hold myself. In answering the interruption of the hon. Member opposite, I said that it was in the exercise of his discretion as President that I held that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to do what he might to have done. The President of the Local Government Board told us himself that he has under the Act of 1909 full power without any extra, legislation, or any extra contribution from the State, or any change of the law to do all that is required. I have said that we have no Government figures available, but we have a certain amount of experience in certain parts of the country. I have here a letter written to one of our newspapers, pointing out that cottages are badly wanted, that it has been impossible to build them, and that to condemn cottages which are not satisfactory for the purpose of housing the working-classes without building new ones, would only be to add to the pro-
    1818
    blem. I have here a case from a district, the Hemel Hempstead district, in which the Local Government Board inspector made it a sine quâ non that no additional burdens should be placed upon the rates. The President of the Local Government Board tells us, first of all, that he has got full power, and he then issues his orders to the local authority telling them that they cannot do this work, because if they do they will have extra burdens placed upon the rates, which is the one thing they cannot do. How can that be consistent with the declaration of the President of the Local Government, Board, that he has all the powers he needs? His own inspector goes down, and the first thing he tells the local authority is that no additional burdens must be placed upon the rates. You are confronted with the fact that you have insufficient accommodation for some of the reasons that I have given. You have men clamouring for homes, and you cannot provide them. We are told that there is power in the Department to compel the local authorities to provide these buildings. If the President of the Local Government Board has got power to force a local authority to do its duty, why is it that to-day we are in the position in which we are? Anybody who has studied this problem recently must know that under the Act of 1909 something has been done, and some progress has been made, but in reality the advance has been very slight indeed, and to-day this is the most pressing as it is the most serious problem with which we are confronted in social legislation.
    The Vaccination Laws in this country have been going through considerable changes, and I for one profoundly regret to learn that there is such a large increase in the number of unvaccinated children. I think that it is deplorable, and I cannot help thinking that the result some day or other may be of the greatest gravity. I want, however, to discuss the action of the head of the Department with regard to the vaccination officers. They are paid under the old system of fees, per case. Those fees have naturally decreased as the cases have decreased, and a large number of men in the country are doing work of the most important medical character on wholly insufficient remuneration. I submit with confidence to the Committee that it was the duty of the President of the Local Government Board to have stepped in and dealt with these men as he could have dealt with them for this purpose— he has full and sufficient powers—because to

    1819
    have men doing work of this kind under the ever present feeling that they are insufficiently and improperly remunerated, is to run grave risks of the work not being efficiently done, and to create among a considerable class of professional men whose work is of the utmost importance to the country a spirit of discontent. I want also to say a word about emigration. I think the whole question of emigration in this country is in the most unsatisfactory condition. I know that it is customary in this House to deride emigration and to say that you have no right to drive your people out of the country. That is perfectly and absolutely true. No one wants to drive them out of the country, and no one would be better pleased than I should be if it were possible to keep all our people in the country, but, whatever we may think or say here, our people take a different view, and they are leaving the United Kingdom every day for different parts of the world. The vast majority of those who go are well able to take care of themselves and to provide for themselves, but there is a certain class of emigrant who is not in this, comparatively speaking, happy position, and I believe that the President of the Local Government Board would do well in the interests of the community if he were to enter into an alliance with the head of the Salvation Army in dealing with some of this class of emigrants, particularly to Canada. The success which has attended the work of the Salvation Army there has been phenomenal. They have hardly had a failure, and it is to these poor people who are unable to help themselves that the care of this House should be directed if we want to prevent those tragic failures which sometimes occur, owing to people having left this country for one of our Colonies improperly provided, either with financial assistance or with the guidance they require when they find themselves for the first time in a strange land.
    There is one other subject about which I want to say a few words. I admit that very few cases have come before me, and the last which came before me, I understand, has been suspended; but I have had cases brought to my attention where attempts have been made to over-ride the decision of the local authorities in the appointment of officials and to substitute for those officials men selected by the Central Office in London. I venture to say that is a wholly wrong and improper
    1820
    policy. If I had done it when I was President of the Local Government Board, I can imagine the chorus of attacks that would have come from all quarters of the House, and no body would have been more vehement in his attack than the right hon. Gentleman himself. He would have said, "This is your idea of local government and of representative government. You have a body elected to govern a locality and you give them powers to do their work and to appoint their officials, but, when they appoint those officials, you reject their nominations and appoint others in their places." I hope the few cases in which this has occurred will be the last. If a local authority makes an appointment which is manifestly unfair, or if it proposes to put some one in office who by his professional attainments or personal character is wholly unfit for the post, then it is obvious that there ought to be power in the central authority to supersede him and secure the appointment of somebody else; but where that is not the case, where it is merely a question of opinion as to the particular qualification or the particular characteristic of the man who would make the best official, then I say you have no right, so long as you pretend to have a popularly elected system of local government, to over-ride your local authorities and take the power of appointment in the hands of the central authority. In my judgment it is a fatal attack on the whole system of local government. It has only been done when the necessities of the case are so manifest as to make it essential that the central Department should step in.
    I said when I began, that. I made my Motion from no desire to deliver a personal attack on the President, of the Local Government Board. I am happy to say he is one of those Ministers of the Crown with whom I have had the pleasantest relations during the time he has been in office, and while I have been in opposition. I do not attack hint personally, but I repeat that, though he has done much good work, he has taken too much into his own hands. He has made himself too much the arbiter of what is good or bad for local authorities or for individuals. We want, I think, a little more of the ripe experience and trained knowledge of those distinguished men with whom he works, and I believe that, given his own characteristics and the advantages of experience, the administration of this Department, which is so

    1821
    important to the health and happiness of the people of this country, will be more satisfactory than it is at the present time.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I want to say a few words on the administration of the Housing Act. I realise that, by your ruling, we can only discuss administration and not the effect of legislation. But my position is made all the easier on account of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made a year—ago a statement which has been quoted by my right hon. Friend this afternoon—that not a single other Housing Act is necessary, and that he can do everything he wants under the present law. If that is so, we must look to his administration. 1f the law is sufficient, all I can say is, from my knowledge of housing in different parts of the country, the administration must be, very much at fault. The state of housing in towns and country districts, as well as in mining districts, is deplorable in many parts of the country. Let me for a few moments deal with the case of the towns. We have the continued existence in most large towns of big slum areas. Notwithstanding all that has been done, there is a terrible amount of over-crowding, I know that the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks about that, says: "Look at the empty houses." It is quite true there are empty houses, but very often overcrowding goes on in the neighbourhood of those empty houses. It suits the owner of the houses to have overcrowding because he gets more rent, and it suits the unfortunate tenant because he is able to pay less for the individual part of the house in which he lives.
    Why is not the law against overcrowding properly carried out? We have been told by Sir William Lever, once a Member of this House, that there are 100,000 deaths every year from overcrowding—a bigger number than were killed during the South African war. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? I think the Government are very much at fault. They talk of the continued existence of these slum areas, but what is being done? How many Part I. schemes are going on in the country at the present time. The Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green said there were twenty areas in London ripe for treatment under Part I. London is engaged in the great Tabard Street scheme, and cannot afford more at the present time. That is nearly true. I have seen a Return by Sir Shirley
    1822
    Murphy, the late County Medical Officer for London, and I gather from that that as a matter of fact not a single town is consistently dealing with slum areas except Liverpool. There are a few schemes—at Exeter, Portsmouth, and Bath, but, generally speaking, Part I is at a standstill. Why is that if the law is sufficient? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not see that more is done to clear these slums? I know he relies on Part II.—on making the owner of the house put it in repair. In a White Paper issued last August, he went fully into the matter, and apparently was very well satisfied with what was being done under Part II. But what does it come to? Out of 1,757 local authorities that made Returns, 1,048 have not dealt with the question at all, and that, the right hon. Gentleman says is very gratifying progress! What does he mean? He talks about 46,000 houses having been built under Part II. How many have not been built that should have been built? How is it that out of these 1,757 local authorities, roughly speaking, only 700 are doing this work? What about the other thousand who are doing nothing at all? Is that satisfactory? If it is not, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to do in the matter?
    I know one great difficulty, and that brings me to the rural question. The difficulty is expressed in this White Paper, which says that it is impossible, very often, to close or demolish insanitary houses on account of the scarcity of suitable accommodation to which the persons displaced many remove. There is the whole question in a nutshell, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman so long as he tries to administer an Act which demolishes property or closes it, but makes no provisions for providing other property, to which persons displaced can go, the Act cannot prove satisfactory. As a matter of fact, it is well known that in many villages where the Act has been put into force it has done a great deal more harm than good, because it is better to have insanitary houses to dwell in than none at all. I read an example of that only the other day. It occurred in the Hungerford district two years ago. It was the case of a family of six, husband, wife and four children, who lived in an insanitary house. The local authorities, using the right hon. Gentleman's Act, closed the house. The family were driven out. As there was no other house they could go to, they went to live in a sheep house for a time. The

    1823
    local authority said that that was insanitary, and they were hunted out. That was in the middle of winter! Was it not a nice state of affairs? I say the real difficulty is this, that you are condemning people to live in insanitary houses because there is nowhere else for them to go. You must make some provision; otherwise the Act will be found to be a dead letter.
    I will give an example of what happens where the Act is not carried out. Two years ago, on the 3rd August, 1911, the late rector of Pelton, a place in Durham, wrote a, letter to the Local Government Board. I do not know what the answer was, but it gave his experience. He said that there were certain houses in Pelton which were an absolute disgrace, and that the infantile mortality was appalling. The houses were, not fit for a prize dog, and he added—
    "I got so sick of burying infants that I could stand it no longer, and I had to leave the place. What is the use of preaching the Gospel, which we clergy are paid to do, while this holocaust is going on from day to day."
    That is a pretty state of affairs, due to the fact that the Act cannot be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman is satisfied apparently that a great deal is being done, but the point to my mind is what building is being done now by the local authorities. Hon. Members will have heard of a Return known as the Winfrey Return, that being the name of the hon. Member who moved for it. It shows what is being done in the way of building houses by local authorities. What does it come to? In the two and a half years which elapsed between the passing of the Housing and Town Planning Act and the date of the Return, 315 houses were provided by the local authorities. We are told we want 100,000 cottages in the villages at once. At that rate of progress it would take 793 years seven months to get that 100,000 cottages ! is that satisfactory to the right hen. Gentleman? Let me take another point. Take the rents charged. This Return is very useful. It not only gives the number of houses built, but also the rents charged. We know quite well that as a rule in country districts it is impossible for a working man to pay more than 1s. 6d. or 2s. or 2s. 6d. weekly for his cottage. But what were the rents charged for the cottages built under the aegis of the President of the Local Government Board? In most cases they varied from 3s. 9d. to 6s. 4d., in eight cases from 3s. to 3s. 4d., and in four cases they were 2s. 6d.—a reasonable rent, but you must add to that
    1824
    the rates. Just contrast that with the case of Ireland. Three hundred and fifteen houses have been built in this country under the Local Government Board at rents which people cannot pay. In Ireland 40,000 cottages have been built at rents the people can pay. I would ask why should we not have administration—I must not talk about legislation—but why should we not have administration as good as in Ireland?
    Take another point from this Return. We know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a very strong line against what he calls "charity rents." He will not have anything in the way of outdoor relief in bricks and mortar. But what do we find from this Return? In scarcely a single case of these houses, built by local authorities under the Act, Do the receipts balance the expenditure! In every single case, there is a deficit. Who pays it? It falls on the ratepayers. It is a charity rent whether the ratepayer pays the deficit or whether the taxpayer pays it. How the right hon. Gentleman can take the stand he has done against Grants-in-Aid to the taxpayer when he himself time after time has authorised that these rents should be paid partly out of the rates, I cannot for the life of the understand. The real fact is this: We are face to face with a terrible shortage of cottages in our country districts. The right hon. Gentleman says there is enough legislation. All I can say is that the administration under that legislation has not produced the desired result. My right hon. Friend says that we have no official figures. I agree that there are none. But I can quote to the right hon. Gentleman some figures which have been privately arrived at by the National Land and Housing Reform League. This body, a little while ago, circularised the rural district councils throughout the country, and these are the questions they put. They asked, first, whether there was a dearth of cottages in the districts. One hundred and eighty-seven said "Yes" and 107 said "No." They then asked whether the cottages were erected without casting a burden on the rate. Eight said "Yes" and 261 said "No." They, thirdly, asked whether they would welcome a State Grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "And they all said 'Yes.'"] I agree; they did say "Yes"; and inasmuch as they could not erect cottages without putting a burden upon the rates, they would have been great fools if they had not. The answer

    1825
    from 169 was "Yes" and from 39 "No." I ask hon. Members who jeer that statement how they are going to provide for this admitted deficiency in cottages unless they adopt a better system of administration than we have at the present time? The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman utterly fails to carry out what he intended by the Act of 1909. In many cases his authority is openly defied. Look at the Reigate case. Two years ago the medical officer of the Reigate district complained of the lack of cottages in certain villages in that district. There was a long delay. Nothing happened. Nothing generally does happen at the Local Government Board under the right hon. Gentleman. At last he sent down an inspector, Dr. Manley, who reported that it was absolutely necessary to provide certain cottages. That was two years ago. What has happened since? Nothing, and nothing seems likely to happen either now or in the near future. Take the Stridland Bay case. There an inquiry was held by the Local Government Board last November. What has been the result of that inquiry? I do not know.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Hear, hear.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Because the right hon. Gentleman has kept it pigeon-holed in his office, and nobody knows. Why on earth is there this terrible delay in dealing with pressing matters of this sort? The matter is very serious, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is growing more so. He mentioned the increase in the population in the neighbourhood of towns, in the men who go to town on bicycles, and in the railway officials and roadmen. Let me mention another class. There has been a great extension of Post Office officials in recent years. The Post Office has been pressed over and over again to provide houses for their people, but they will not do it. I am not going into that point, because it would be criticising another Department, but it adds to the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is perfectly impossible in present circumstances to find adequate accommodation for the people in the villages. I have dealt with the state of affairs in the big towns, and I have spoken about the country districts, but I suppose there is no part of the country where housing is worse than in our mining districts. There
    1826
    are special difficulties there. A new pit is opened and there is a great influx of population. The life of the pit may not be long, and it is difficult to get anybody to build, but the fact remains that in some parts of the country the condition of housing in mining districts is absolutely an abomination, and nowhere is it worse than in South Wales. I have been paying some attention lately to the state of affairs in South Wales. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a new question. When the Royal Commission on the Poor Law was sitting some years ago, the Commissioners were struck by the evidence they had of the terribly bad accommodation in South Wales. They were so struck by it that they got the Local Government Board to send down a Special Commissioner to report. The right hon. Gentleman has allowed me to see the Report and has asked me not to use it publicly, therefore I will not do so. All I will say is that it reveals the fact—and I believe things are not much better now—that people in receipt of outdoor relief were living in houses so bad as to be a positive scandal to the whole country. What has been done since? The right hon. Gentleman asked me not to make use of this Report, because he says that so much progress has been made in South Wales since it was made. What do we find? So dissatisfied are Members of this House who represent South Wales with the state of things, that the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), who I do not see in his place to-day, last week asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not bodily hand over the administration of the Housing Acts from the Local Government Board to some central Welsh authority. That does not look as if things were particularly good in South Wales. I remember reading last year at the time of the coal strike some most remarkable articles in the "Daily News," a leading Liberal paper. They said this:—
    "The real problem of Glamorgan is not that of the minimum wage, but that of the housing condition of the miners."
    The article proceeds to give some statistics to show how bad were the conditions of miners regarding housing in that district. They took a place called Penydaren, which I believe is close to Merthyr. The figures showed that the general death rate in Penydaren was 19.7 per thousand, and that the infantile death rate was no less than 193 per thousand. If you compare that with the Garden City of Letchworth, you find that the general death rate there is

    1827
    only 4.8, and the infantile death rate only 54.05. I say that the condition of housing in South Wales and other mining districts is an absolute scandal at the present time. Something must be undertaken and done quickly in order to mend these conditions. I am not going into any question with regard to the action of the President of the Board in regard to proposed legislation, but I do say this: That while I join my right hon. Friend in his personal respect for the President of the Local Government Board, I do not think he in the least understands the gravity of the situation; I do not think he appreciates the terrible conditions under which so many of our people are housed, and I do not think he realises how important it is to the nation that our people should be properly housed. I think he is simply playing round the edge of the question. We want a new administration and a new law, and, I venture to think, a new President of the Local Government Board if this matter is to be satisfactorily dealt with.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I rise for the purpose of putting before the Committee and the President of the Local Government Board some matters which I suggest are worthy of his very urgent attention. 'The right hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the President's salary, assured him that he admired his courage, and complimented him substantially upon the line of policy that he had pursued since he went to that very important office. With the virtues and successes, real or imaginary, that have followed the administration of the Local Government Board since the right hon. Gentleman took over that office, I do not intend to deal. I imagine the Committee will agree with me when I suggest that the President of the Local Government Board himself will not allow this discussion to close to-day without in a very striking and characteristic way having something to say about the virtues and successes of the administration of his particular Department. I want to say one or two things, which, I submit, how very distinct signs of weakness, and to call the attention of the Committee to what I believe to be real and urgent grievances. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me made reference, I think for the second time, to a letter which appeared in the Press from a curate with regard to the housing conditions in the parish of Pelton, in the county of Durham. I anticipate
    1828
    that in that particular connection the President of the Local Government Board upon this occasion will be able to give a somewhat effective reply.
    Mr. BURNS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Inasmuch as there has been a Local Government Board inquiry, and proposals have been submitted to the Board which involve an expenditure of close upon £30,000 in the direction of dealing with this housing problem.
    Mr. BURNS: And they say nothing has been done!
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Arising out of that inquiry and a communication which came from the Local Government Board subsequently to that inquiry, I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I personally regret, and I am certain that the members of the Chester-le-Street Council regret, that to this day the Local Government Board should be found suggesting to the rural district council that in a mining district in particular their proposal to put in a hot-water cistern should be abandoned, with a view to reducing the cost of these cottages. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a very reactionary proposal, and that the will and desire of the publicly elected representatives to make their housing scheme not only a financial success but a thorough success, by ministering to the comforts and needs of the people who will have to live in those particular houses, should be respected. I submit that miners in particular have a particular need of a hot-water supply in their house I hope it is not yet too late for the right hon. Gentleman to see his way clear to withdraw that suggestion, and to allow the original proposals of the local administrative authority to find expression not only in the estimates but in the actual houses when they are built. I have here a copy of a letter from the Local Government Board, dated 14th May. I notice that in that communication the Local Government Board request the local authority to somewhat revise their proposals with a view to reducing the cost.
    Mr. BURNS: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but the reference to hot water has reference to an additional cost of £20 per cottage for a circulating system. We thought that in proportion to the wages earned and the rents to be

    1829
    paid, it was a disproportionately large amount, but we left it to the local authority.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I can only speak from the communication, a copy of which I have in my hand. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he is putting a much more liberal interpretation upon that communication than the average member of a district council would be entitled to do, and I am inclined to surmise that had they put that interpretation upon it the right hon. Gentleman would probably have been inclined to question that interpretation. However, as to the amount, I think in that connection also the right hon. Gentleman may have been just as wrongly informed, but in that communication there is a reference to a request that has been made for a modification of the plans with a view to reducing the cost. I have had some knowledge and experience of the Local Government Board in dealing with housing, and on previous occasions when I have taken part in discussions when this Vote has been before the House I have put to the right hon. Gentleman a very pertinent question to which up to the present he has not given, at least to me, a very straightforward reply. Arising out of my experience with the Local Government Board in this connection I am satisfied that, at least so far as Departmental officials are concerned, there is a distinct tendency to try and reduce the size of the room in workmen's cottages to the very lowest minimum. That is a policy that is very much to be deplored. I have before my mind a very striking experience that we had in Durham county arising out of which the Durham County Council asked the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation. Since I came to the House I was privileged to be one of a deputation that interviewed the right hon. Gentleman on the point to which I am going to refer. The facts and circumstances were that whilst county councils have only very limited powers, they have the prerogative and enjoy the opportunity of exercising a moral and sometimes a healthy influence, and I say, to the credit of the Durham County Council, they have exercised their influence to the advantage of not only sanitary reform, but of substantial housing reform. As illustrating my point, the Durham County Council took a very strong line that it was very undesirable
    1830
    that we should have tenement houses built in mining villages where there was plenty of land and plenty of open space, and land as a relatively cheap price. That policy met with a large measure of success, but there was a minor authority who not only refused to accept our advice, but in a housing scheme that they had sanctioned, by passing plans for property to be erected by a speculator, had even allowed their by-laws to be violated. A county council is in a position to report to the Local Government Board, and to our regret we found that the Local Government Board did not support the county council but supported the local authority who had violated their building by-laws.
    The particular point to which I wish to call the attention of the House as indicative, in my judgment at least, of the policy of the permanent officials of the Local Government Board, lies in this fact, that just at the very moment when that violation of the local by-law was the subject of negotiation between the larger, which was the county council, and the minor authority, the urban district council, there went from the Local Government Board the plans of a specimen house, tenement property, with the suggestion that the Local Government Board considered it a very good plan for a pitman's cottage. That did not help the county council in their efforts to prevent the perpetuation of the erection of tenement cottages in rural districts where there was plenty of land, and land was relatively cheap. On the main question of the violation of the by law the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation. I well remember when we entered the room, before we began to discuss this business, the right hon. Gentleman, in a very pertinent way, asked your humble servant, the chairman of the county council, the chairman of the health committee, and the medical officer of health, what we were doing in Durham in order to improve the condition of things there, evidently unmindful of the fact that our very mission and purpose in going to that Local Government Board office to meet the right hon. Gentleman was to complain not only because he would not support us, but in a very striking way prevented us from doing work in the direction that we believed to be in harmony with the best interests of the working classes, and we called his attention to this plan of a specimen cottage, and after our conversation on the matter the right hon. Gentleman withdrew that plan and asked the local authority to give the same

    1831
    publicity to the withdrawal as had been given to the suggestion, because when that specimen plan was discussed the influence of that suggestion, to build tenement houses with very limited accommodation, was not confined to the area of that urban council, but in less than forty-eight hours the suggestion went forth throughout the length and breadth of Durham county that the Local Government Board were prepared to sanction the erection of tenement houses. So far as this scheme is concerned, I hope that the Local Government Board will not seek to reduce the size of the rooms to the lowest possible minimum, and that they will certainly see the utility and wisdom of the local council in the scheme that they are propounding. We not only have two, but,sometimes three, and even four shifts, where the workers and the miners' families go out in two, three, and sometimes four lots.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: How many cubic feet does the hon. Member require in a miner's house?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I am not discussing the minimum size. I was dealing with the facts as submitted in this question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Durham Miners' Council came down to see houses in Yorkshire that I am building, and they fixed on a certain standard of house which was very much smaller than that required by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: So far as I am concerned, I desire that a working man and his wife and children should have as much light, sunshine, fresh air and room, not only for sleeping accommodation, but for domestic comfort and convenience, as any other section of the community, and that would be a good investment, even viewed from the standpoint of the State. There are one or two observations I wish to make in connection with another Department which comes under review today, and that is in the domain of the administration of Poor Law relief. Twelve months ago when I took part in a discussion on an occasion similar to this, I heard a very definite statement to the effect that since the right hon. Gentleman's regime at the Local Government Board there has been a well directed effort on the part of officials of the Board, not only rigidly, but
    1832
    too frequently soullessly to insist upon a literal interpretation of the word "destitute" when administering Poor Law relief, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman, if the facts as I stated them, with some knowledge of what I was saying, were correct, were we entitled in concluding that that was in harmony with his own attitude so far as the administration of Poor Law relief is concerned. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will on this, as on previous occasions, probably succeed in influencing a very large section of the House by quoting unlimited figures pertaining to the number of recipients of indoor and outdoor relief, and the amount, etc., etc. But we on these benches have no pleasure in spending money for the sake of spending money and, whether it be in the domain of legislation or administration, we claim to be economists in the sense that we believe in the wise expenditure of money; and I want to urge upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that it can no longer be questioned that during his regime at the head of the Local Government Board the Poor Law has been administered with rigidness and with want of soul, without due regard, not only for human consideration, but for the highest and best interests, not' only of the citizens, but of the recipients so far as the unfortunate poor are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman declined or overlooked to reply to my question when I put it to him twelve months ago, as to whether his officers, in the policy they were pursuing, whether it was the Local Government Board inspector, or the auditor of the Local Government Board, were either pursuing that policy with his full authority; in other words, they were expressing his mind and his attitude on this question?
    I remember this question-being argued at considerable length, and I submitted to the representative of the Department that it would be a more economic, as well as a more sane and wise policy to give to the necessitous and deserving poor reasonable outdoor relief rather than transfer them into the workhouse; and the House may be surprised, as I was, to find even in these days, under this present Government, an official of the Local Government Board suggesting that my reasoning was wrong, and was not in harmony with the facts, and when I asked him to explain, he said, "the explanation is this: If you have three applicants

    1833
    for outdoor relief, and you offer them, instead of outdoor relief, admission to the workhouse, two out of the three will prefer to remain outside even though they do not have any outdoor relief. That is very inhumane, and certainly is in direct contravention of the humanity of the age and the spirit of the time, and if it expressed the will, the mind, the purpose and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman it is certainly discreditable, and ought to meet with its just reward from the public mind and sentiment of this country.
    There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. I have before me some facts which have been sent to the Labour party in the House of Commons with reference to a controversy that has been going on for some time between the Local Government Board and the Willesden Board of Guardians. The Willesden Board of Guardians decided that it was very necessary to have their workhouse and outbuildings painted. The estimated cost was about £350. It was decided that they would do this work by direct labour. It was necessary to have the consent of the Local Government Board before they entered upon the work, and they wrote to that Board stating the facts and the estimated cost. Notwithstanding that that was the decision of the popularly elected representatives of the people, the proposal was not sanctioned. It is interesting to note in passing that in connection with the Works Department of the London County Council, one of the stoutest advocates of direct labour was the President of the Local Government Board. The Board insisted upon the Willesden Board of Guardians advertising and getting the work done by contract. They accepted that view, believing that it was no use any longer to resist the decision of the Local Government Board. Their own estimate for the work was approximately £350, but the tenders which were received in response to the advertisement varied from £558 to £1,415. The sequel was interesting. While the guardians accepted the lowest tender, as per instruction of the Local Government Board, the work had not been going on for more than two or three weeks when they were under the necessity of stopping the job because of the very unsatisfactory nature of the work that was being done by the firm that got the contract. The guardians made further appeals to the Local Government Board
    1834
    on three separate occasions to be allowed to perform that useful and necessary work by direct labour. I venture to suggest that from the economic standpoint that was a wise proposal, but the Local Government Board still refused to allow that. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we have no hesitation in stating that the policy pursued by the Local Government Board was neither consistent with efficiency nor sound economy, and that the local representatives ought to have had more regard paid to their expressed will and desire.
    I want to lay before the Committee certain facts which have been sent to the office of the party to which I belong. They are supplied by the Bromley and District Trades and Labour Council. That Council made certain representations to the Local Government Board concerning what they believed to be the condition of things that obtain in the infections joint hospital for the district, and asked the Local Government Board to hold a public inquiry. An inspector was sent down and there was an informal meeting. The parties who had made the complaint put in an appearance, but they were respectfully asked by the doctor who represented the Local Government Board to withhold their evidence as that was just a preliminary inquiry, and they were told that there would be a public inquiry, when they would have an opportunity of submitting evidence. The information we have now is that there is to be no public inquiry, and that consequently the informants have not had an opportunity of submitting details in support of the complaint which was sent to the Local Government Board. I believe the facts to be of sufficient importance to ask the Committee to allow me to give one or two details. Assuming these statements to be facts, and I have no reason to doubt them, I have no doubt that they prove conclusively that there is need for a public inquiry, and that, so far as the administration of this particular infections diseases hospital is concerned, there is indeed great room for improvement. In the case of a family named Cricket, three children, George, Edward, and Doris, were removed to the hospital on 26th and 28th October. Doris was discharged as cured on 4th December, and on 10th and 14th December and 31st January, Marian, George, and Evelyn, were respectively, out of the same home, sent to the hospital. There were two deaths in that home, and the opinion of the local medical officer of

    1835
    health is that these children were sent out before they were cured, that they carried infection not only into their own home, but into an adjoining home, where the family suffered two bereavements on account of that infection. In the case of a family named Semark, four children were removed to the hospital—Elsie on 13th September, Hilda on 5th November, and Leonard and Leslie on 15th November. The first child was discharged on 20th October, the second on 28th January, and the other two on 20th December. The parents state that the first child, Elsie, was in an infectious state when discharged, and that she infected other three members of the family. I am supported in that view by the medical officer of health for Beckenham. Two children in a family next door caught the infection and died. The children who carried the infection were, when discharged, suffering from open wounds, running at the nose, and were peeling. There are other cases that I might give. These facts were sent to the Local Government Board, and Dr. Copeman, representing the Board, after holding an informal inquiry, suggested that the right hon. Gentleman ought to institute a public inquiry to ascertain the real facts. If there has been maladministration, he would be justified in insisting that there should be improvements in that hospital.
    In regard to Poor Law administration, I think the time is more than due when the word "destitute" ought to be obliterated from all official documents in connection with Poor Law relief. It is foreign to the spirit of the age, it is inimical to the interests of the honest, thrifty, and deserving poor, and I think the word "necessitous" ought to replace that word. As to the question of the housing of the poor, I hold that the effects, as shown in connection with the infantile and other death rates, are certainly not creditable to this nation. Might I suggest that a substantial contribution to reform in that direction would be the appointment of full-time medical officers of health? Another reform which I think is urgently necessary, and which would be very helpful towards that end, would be if the medical officers of health in the provinces, who at the resent time have little security of tenure in their offices, were to be placed in the same category as medical officers of health for county councils, who are under the control of the Local Govern-
    1836
    ment Board. I feel quite certain that if in urban and rural districts our medical officers were full-time officers and had the same security as those connected with county councils, it would be a substantial move in the direction of progress and reform, which would enable us to deal more effectively with what is admitted by all sections of the House to be a very urgent and pressing problem, namely, the housing of the working classes of this country. In that way there might be established conditions which would be conducive not only to their physical well being, but to the development of the highest and best in our citizenship.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: It is inevitable that there must be a certain amount of repetition in the speeches delivered from this side of the House, but as long as the old grievances exist, the old speeches must be delivered. It cannot, I think, be objected that repetition is vain in this case, because we may claim on this side of the House without arrogance or conceit that every Debate on the housing question has led to an awakening of the public conscience, shaken the self complacency of the Local Government Board, and opened the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact of which they were ignorant until this time last year, that there is such a question as that of rural housing. I notice that the President of the Local Government Board considers that those who do not regard the Act of 1909 as an adequate measure are either hopeless sentimentalists or noodles who are ignorant of the first principles of political economy. But we are not the only people who are dissatisfied with the administration of the Act of 1909. The President of the Board of Agriculture has said that 100,000 cottages were necessary to be built in the next five years. I am afraid that at the present rate of building the President of the Local Government Board will not see his requirements fulfilled, at all events during his tenure of office. Loans were sanctioned up to a month ago for 3,000 cottages, and at that rate, it would take, I think, about 100 years before all requirements are satisfied. I know that the President considers that the progress under the Act is about as good as one might reasonably expect, but of the loans which have been sanctioned a very large number are for houses in semi-mining or semi-rural areas. Out of the 1,700 cottages sanctioned up to March,

    1837
    1912, only 398 were for rural areas. In the Return of 1st August there were only four plans with a provision of rents of less than a week. Ordinary labourers cannot possibly afford to give more than 3s. a week, and it is quite obvious that the great majority of the houses sanctioned were quite useless to agricultural labourers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has referred to the investigation conducted by the National Land and Home League, and I would like to amplify that, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us presently how much he has done, and therefore it is only right that he should have an opportunity of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's," and knowing how much has been left undone. Take the case of the various counties. For instance, in Bedfordshire, you find five areas with a dearth of cottages and nothing done in three areas. In Buckinghamshire, there is a dearth of cottages in four, and nothing done in three. In Cambridgeshire, there is a dearth of cottages in six, and nothing done in four. In Cheshire, a dearth in seven, and no action reported in four. In Cornwall, a dearth eleven rural areas, and no action reported from nine. In Derbyshire, a dearth in five, and no action in four. In Devonshire, a dearth in thirteen, and no action in seven. In Dorsetshire, a dearth in eight, and no action in six. In Gloucestershire, the same ratio. In Herefordshire, a dearth in five, and no action in five. In Northamptonshire, a dearth in five, and no action in three. In Somersetshire, a dearth in nine, and no action in six; and so on. And the nearer you come to the orbit of the right hon. Gentleman's diplomacy the less influence he appears to have. In Surrey, for instance, there is an actual dearth in eight, and no action is taken in five. In the case of the Reigate and the Guildford District Councils, inspectors have been sent down, and the right hon. Gentleman has urged the councils to do their obvious duty; but nothing has been done. The uselessness of the Housing and Town Planning Act is not alone confined to rural areas. It is also, it seems to me, useless, for instance, in Lancashire, in the cotton towns. Some very interesting articles appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" not long ago. Here is an extract:—
    "The Act was passed more than three years ago, and except perhaps for a little greater activity in closing and demolishing insanitary property, in those few places

    1838
    where it can be done, without increasing overcrowding, even the beginnings of housing reform have yet to be made. In Blackburn for instance, an employer states that from 700 to 1,000 looms are standing idle in that town for lack of houses for the working classes. In Accrington, an official census shows that only six artisan's houses are vacant out of about 11,000 or 12,000 houses. In Oldham, though there has been a large increase of population within the last ten years, there is a serious decrease in the number of houses. In Rochdale, the local health committee reports August that there is a great scarcity of houses for the working-class population, and that this scarcity prevents them from dealing with insanitary and undesirable houses by closing them. Nothing has been done in these areas."
    This scarcity of houses in Lancashire is interesting from one point of view. We on this side who happen to be connected with land are always being scoffed at and blamed by hon. Members opposite for our responsibility as to the scarcity of rural houses. I do not think that I have ever heard hon. Members opposite blame the captains of industry and the cotton lords for not doing something to house their own workmen. A cotton employer has complained that three or four thousand spindles are standing idle. What a howl of indignation there would be if we on this side of the House complained that our own workmen could not get houses. I turn now to the question of the Poor Law. Hon. Members opposite always remind me somewhat of the Athenians of old. They are always crying out and asking for something new. Just now they have been beseeching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come forward with some striking programme which will get them votes at the next election, but I cannot help thinking that it would be more to the purpose if they did the work that lies under their hands. I suppose that their love for humanity is so general that they cannot condescend to particulars, and I cannot help thinking that it is a serious reflection on the Liberal Government and the Liberal party generally that there are only about 2,000 fewer children in the workhouses than there were when they came into office. When the last Return was issued there were 8,000 children in workhouse wards and 5,000 in infirmaries. It is a monstrous thing in these days of enlightenment and great prosperity and wealth that these children should be brought up in this atmosphere of gloom, depression and dependence, rather than in the atmosphere of joy and happiness, which should be the right of every child.
    It is not as if it were a difficult matter to do. My right hon. Friend below me has complimented the right hon. Gentleman for being a type of the rugged and

    1839
    courageous Englishman. I do wish that the right hon. Gentleman would take his courage in both hands and say to the guardians, "On such and such a day you must have every child out of the workhouse." I would like to know what has become of the draft Order which was promulgated by the Departmental Committee which recommended that no child should be kept in the workhouse for more than six weeks. That draft Order was, I believe, submitted to several boards of guardians, but since then it has been withdrawn, and we cannot get any sign of it. I think that it would immensely strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hand to have that issued and have it well known, because, though he might possibly tread on some of the guardians' toes, he would have the whole of the enlightened public opinion of the country behind him in saying that we really do insist on taking the children out of the workhouses. I come now to the children on out-relief. There is no doubt that in consequence of the criticisms levelled at the administration of the Local Government Board there has been some improvement as regards children on out-relief. Committees of ladies have been appointed to inquire whether the relief is adequate, and whether the children are maintained in proper condition, but there is still a great deal to be done. For instance, in a Wiltshire Union children on out-relief are granted the munificent sum of 6d. a week and two loaves of bread, and in such an enlightened place as Derby—which is enlightened, I suppose, because it returns a Labour Member and also a staunch Liberal, and has been selected as the future seat of the Prime Minister's son—there are a hundred widows and deserted wives who have 500 children between them, and these children only get 1s. 6d. a week on out-relief.
    The consequence must be that those children are maintained in a half-starved condition. I notice that at a meeting of the Board of Guardians of the Blofield Union, in Norfolk, there was a debate as to whether the children should be granted an increase of 6d. for out-relief, and one of the guardians boasted that the union was the most economical union in the whole of Norfolk. A union which may be economical from the point of view of the ratepayers in the district may be extremely wasteful and disastrous from the point of view of the nation at large. The
    1840
    child who is receiving out-relief only to the extent of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week is both a neglected child and half-starved child. A neglected child is a potential criminal, and a half-starved child is a potential pauper. I know that the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is extremely dangerous to increase out-relief, because of the fear of increasing sweating, and also the fear that husbands may desert their wives. I cannot see the reason or common justice of the position that children should be half-starved and brought up to be inadequate people for the rest of their lives simply because there is a danger that some scoundrel may desert his wife. Surely the proper remedy for that is that a husband should be followed up and prosecuted as the law provides! I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make further and better progress in the reform of the Poor Law, and, if he does, there is no section of the House which will afford him the credit clue more readily than Members on this side.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction made a twofold criticism of the Local Government Board, either branch of which seemed to me irreconcilable with the other. He first alluded to the President of the Local Government Board as a determined autocrat and complained that he had issued a very large number of Orders couched in most Imperial language, which no Englishman like himself could be expected to put up with. I have had some experience of the Orders of the Local Government Board, and I am bound to say that I do not find in their language anything which justifies the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me they are just the same sort of Orders in the same language and form that used to be issued by the Local Government Board in the day when the right, hon. Gentleman himself presided there. In substance the right hon. Gentleman made no criticism upon any of the Orders which have been issued; therefore, on that branch, I think his criticism has rather broken down. The main part of the attack of the right hon. Gentleman, and of those who followed him on the other side, has not been that the President of the Local Government Board has been too autocratic in his methods, or that he has used his power too widely; on the contrary, it is that he bas not made the most of the powers he has, and that he has not redressed the particular grievances which, in

    1841
    the opinion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he might have redressed if he had made a greater use of the powers he at present, possesses. A great deal of the criticism has centred upon his dealings with the housing problem. I think we have some reason to complain that in the speeches which have been made the charge has not been put more precisely and definitely. A great deal really seems to be based upon the attitude of the President of the Local Government Board in resisting alterations of the law proposed on one side of the House or the other. I am quite ready to debate that matter at the proper time, but under the well-established rule of the House it is impossible to discuss legislation on this particular Vote.
    Hon Members have spoken as if the housing problem is exclusively one of a shortage, of houses in rural and urban districts. The problem is a great deal more complicated than can be expressed in the simple formula of there being too few houses in this place or that. If hon. Members could come with me to the North -of England I could take them to village after village where there is no shortage of houses. They are deserted villages, with very few inhabitants left. A few years ago they were populous villages, well equipped with every accommodation for the people—village halls, churches, chapels, club rooms, schools, and all those institutions which are associated with village life. But the people and the children are not there. That, I submit, is just as much a rural problem as the shortage of houses of which Members have been talking this afternoon. The Noble Lord who has just spoken, and other Members, complain that justice is not done to the rural landlords in the matter of housing. I cannot speak for these around me, but certainly I have never criticised the rural landlords for not building sufficient houses. I have an intimate knowledge of two or three counties in this country, and I think that the landlords there have thoroughly done their duty in the matter of putting up property. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the cottages they have built are, on the whole, good cottages. But it is not that the landlords have not done their duty; the problem is far deeper than that. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has ruled out different considerations affecting this problem as if they did not enter into it. The question of wages, I think, enters into the problem.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not say that wages are not an important factor, but what I said was that I objected to any attempt to set up a standard of wages by legislation.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss matters of legislation.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The point I am upon does not involve legislation. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the housing question is really one of rent. I believe that if you could get a fair rent paid for houses, the houses would be very speedily forthcoming. The difficulty in rural districts is that where the landowners put up cottages they are not let at economic rents. Economic rents are not paid in the rural districts. Cottages are let at 1s. 6d. and 2s. a week which could not be put up for less than double or treble that sum. I submit that the housing question and the wages question are inextricably interwoven. While I do not object to any scheme for improving housing accommodation, such as that put forward by the other side, I do say that the root question is one of wages, and when you enable people, to pay a fair rent for houses, I believe the houses will be forthcoming in the places where the fair rents are paid. I wish to touch upon another point: It is that where good wages are paid, as in the case of the miners, the wage-earners are not ready to pay in rent a fair proportion of their weekly wage. In Durham, the mining villages we have been told, are in a condition, as to housing, as bad as anywhere in the country. I know that it is so. The mining villages in Durham are in a disgraceful condition, yet the men who live in them are not receiving small wages; they are in receipt of high wages, and I think that if the miners insist upon having better housing accommodation and better conditions they ought to be ready out of their wages, which are not small, to pay an economic rent for the cottage accommodation which they require. Miners rank high among the wage-earners, and they are able to spend a large proportion of their money on other matters, while they are unwilling to apply some reasonable proportion of their wages to house rent. If they paid economic rents, the houses would be forthcoming.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Is it not a fact that a large number of the existing houses were put up at a time when wages were

    1843
    not so high as they are now, and is it not a fact also, that no encouragement has been given to these men to live in better houses?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: There is another point which has not been touched upon. I am told by my hon. Friend who knows Durham well, that there has been a vast improvement in recent times in that county. My hon. Friend below me points out that these houses were put up when wages were not so good as they are to-day, and perhaps the standard of comfort in housing was not so high formerly. I agree that all these things, working together, enter into the consideration of the housing problem. But I submit that the whole question is inevitably one of rent, and when the wage-earners are prepared to pay a fair rent for the accommodation which they require, that accommodation will be forthcoming from capitalists who are ready to make a fair percentage on their money in that, as in other directions. But there is a point in connection with this subject which touches the administration of the Local Government Board more closely. It is not only the housing question in those rural districts; it is a question of the village as a whole, and of drainage and water supply. You cannot get a high standard of housing accommodation unless you have combined with it a continuous water supply for the village with which you are dealing. And on this point I make an appeal to the Local Government Board, because I think they are open to some criticism on those two matters. The question of the drainage of villages throughout the country is left far too much to haphazard, to the good will of the local council, or to the will of the local engineer. We very much need some standard for the drainage of our country villages, and we also want a great deal more systematic attention given to this subject on the part of the Local Government Board. I speak exclusively of rural districts. In regard to urban areas, I think the bodies concerned are stronger, the populations are larger, and the resources greater, to enable them to get supplies of water, and to carry through great drainage schemes. But that is not so in our country districts. My hon. Friend below me pointed out how the standard of comfort has been rising. I agree with him that the standard of cleanliness and of sanitation is higher, and that there is
    1844
    a much greater demand for a Proper water supply than there used to be. The Local Government Board, I know, has done something. I have read the latest Report they have issued, and on page 79 of the Report for 1911–12 they say:—
    "We have corresponded during the year with a number of local authorities in consequence of reports of their medical officers of health, or complaints from residents of defective water supply, and, in cases where it appeared that their allegations were well founded, we urged the authorities to secure an improvement in the supply."
    6.0 P.M.
    I quite admit that the Local Government Board has done that. I myself, am a member of a local district council, and the Local Government Board have been in correspondence with us for many years on this subject. They have blamed us for not doing our duty in providing a water supply, and they have urged us to greater efforts. Year after year we have made efforts to find the water, but we have not succeeded. It was not from any failure of good will on our part that we could not make the villages all we would like them to be; it is because we have really had no help from the Local Government Board and the Government that we cannot achieve what the Department has asked us to do. I cannot touch upon legislation, because that is outside the scope of our discussion, but I think some legislation is required. What I want the Local Government Board to do is to tackle this water question more systematically than they have done up to the present. It is no use for them to wait until a complaint comes from a village, or until a district council suddenly wakes up to find that there is an outbreak of typhoid, or some other occurrence which calls attention to their locality. I want a large and systematic survey of the country, to have the country mapped out, so that it may ascertained what sources of water supply there are in the various districts, and somehow or other apportion the water to the places which require it. There is danger that great municipalities may take from the rural districts the water supply which ought to go for the better supply of those districts. That is one danger which may arise, unless there is a systematic handling of the whole problem of the water supply. On the other hand, you have the local district councils throughout the country unable to supply their localities with water under the present system. I want the Local Government Board to make some general survey, and to handle the problem in some broad and statesmanlike manner.

    1845
    I believe in the course of the Parliament of 1910 a Return was ordered to be made as to the water supplies of England and Wales. We have never seen that Return. I do not know what profit has been made with it or whether my right hon. Friend can tell me whether that Return is likely to be ready soon, and what information the Return will contain when we get it, and whether they propose to found any action on the part of their Department in regard to that Return. I would like to know what steps they mean to take to bring the facts of that Return to the notice of the localities of the country, and to make it intelligible to people of small intelligence like myself who sit upon the local boards. We do not understand great Blue Books and elaborate Government Board would tackle this question, explained to us in simple language, so that we can understand them in our councils which meet fortnightly, and when we talk to one another in the simple language which characterises the councils of the country. We want to have this information made easily available for the ordinary local district councils throughout the country. I believe if the Local Government Board would tackle this question, which is a burning and pressing one in many districts throughout the country, that they would be meeting a most general point, and would be doing that which would find general acceptance in all parts of the House. I do not say that the Government have not done their best to secure water for the villages where the want of it has been brought to their knowledge, but I do ask them to take a more general view of the question, and to deal with it more systematically, and I believe, if they will do that, that they will be, conferring an estimable boon on the dwellers in our country districts.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I intervene in this Debate only for the purpose of answering some of the questions which have just been put to the representatives of the Local Government Board by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I do not propose to refer to the question of housing, with which my right hon. Friend the President will deal later on. My hon. Friend has referred to the question of drainage and water supply, and has expressed the hope that the Local Government Board will do all it can to promote those useful sanitary measures throughout the country.
    1846
    The Local Government Board loses no opportunity of impressing upon the local authorities the absolute necessity of providing an adequate supply of water and a proper system of drainage. Cases are constantly coming before me in which the Board are taking measures to attain those ends. My hon. Friend has referred to the desirability of the Local Government Board undertaking something in the nature of a comprehensive survey of the whole of the water supplies of the country. It was recommended by a Select Committee which sat in the year 1878, and a Joint Committee of both Houses, of which I was a member, and which sat in 1910, that a survey of the whole country from the water point of view should be made in order that we might ascertain what the available water resources of the country were. I feel sure the House will agree with me that this is a question of great interest and of great public importance. As my hon. Friend has said, the water needs of the country are continually growing. We are becoming a cleaner and more hygienic people continually. The number of baths are increasing every year, and the number of public and private conveniences that require the use of water are constantly increasing. We want more water for the drainage of our houses and for the watering of our roads. The population is growing and is continually demanding a larger supply of water. The difficulty that will arise, and which has arisen to some extent at the present time, and which will certainly be felt with far greater stringency in twenty or thirty years' time, is that the available water resources of the country are fixed, whereas the demand upon those resources is continually increasing. The great water sheds that are still available for supplying our great towns are continually diminishing in numbers. It is, therefore, of great importance that the country should have some knowledge as to the extent of the water supply that is actually available.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that the Return was ordered in November, 1910. I may inform the Committee that immediately after the Local Government Board set about preparing the Schedules and obtaining the information from the various authorities. They have received altogether over 3,000 separate returns of the available supplies, which are now being tabulated. The Return will show, as regards every water undertaker, the place of supply, the source of supply, the

    1847
    nature of the works, the quantity and quality of the water, the area, the population, and the number of houses in every district and parish in England and Wales, the number of houses supplied from piped services, the names of the water undertakers, and the source, nature and sufficiency where there is no piped service.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Does the Return include public and private supplies?
    Mr. LEWIS: Public works and private companies.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: And private wells
    Mr. LEWIS: Information has been acquired from every available source. My hon. Friend has referred to the delay which has taken place, but the Committee will understand that the labour of preparing a Return of that kind was very great. I am glad, however, to be able to say that the Return is now in the printer's hands, and that it will be issued before long. I believe that the Return will be found to be of very considerable value. I think that it will be of special value to Parliamentary Committees, because at the present time those Committees are at the mercy of those who appear before them as to the information they can obtain about the various water undertakings and about the sources of supply. In future they will have all that information before them, not only as regards the particular scheme they may be considering at the time, but they will be able to make some valuable comparisons between one part of the country and another. My hon. Friend asked, I think, as well whether the Local Government Board were taking any action upon the returns. I may inform him that we are extracting all the information in the returns which bears on underground water, a matter of very considerable importance, that we are dividing the water among the different geological formations in every county in England and Wales, and that we are drawing up a return of the amount of water drawn by public undertakers from each geological formation in England and Wales. That is the kind of information we are obtaining at the present time. He also asked whether the Return would be made intelligible to the people. I have pleasure in informing him that a Memorandum will be prepared which, I trust,
    1848
    will give the public some very useful information with regard to the subject. He alluded to the difficulties of rural district councils at present owing to the fact that they are unable to obtain water supplies compulsorily. They can acquire land compulsorily, and they can construct waterworks, but they are unable to obtain water compulsorily. The question is one into which I cannot enter as it involves legislation; but I think I may say the Local Government Board did introduce a Bill last year and a more reasonable Bill, I am sure, was never presented, for the purpose of enabling the local authorities to obtain water supplies compulsorily. The Bill was defeated last Session owing to the opposition of powerful interests in this House, but I am not without hope that it will be passed in the course of the present Session.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the sending round to the district councils extracts from the Return relating to their particular districts. I think it would be extremely useful to them if they could get that information.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: And as to their powers, too.
    Mr. LEWIS: I think my hon. Friend will see that the Return is one of an extremely voluminous character, and I am not quite sure whether it would be necessary to send that information, much of which, at any rate, must be already in their possession. Any assistance the Local Government Board can give in regard to this matter will be most freely and willingly given, and we are always ready to do anything we can to place every possible information in the hands of the local authorities. This, I may say, is the kind of preparatory work which the Local Government Board have been doing during the past two years. It is work of a character which, I believe, will be extremely valuable in the future, and it is an absolutely essential preliminary to any general survey of the water supplies of the country. I hope that the Committee will approve of the action which the Local Government Board have taken in regard to water supplies.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS: I am sure the Committee will welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. We all know very well what is happening in the small district councils which are robbed of their water by wealthy companies. Therefore,

    1849
    I welcome the statement he has made; but I did not rise for the purpose of talking about that. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) made an interesting speech upon the administration of the Housing Acts. He apparently agreed with the President that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that nothing can be done by administration. He says the housing question is a wages question. He would be a very foolish man who would deny the close association of wages and housing; but it is somewhat remarkable that as soon as we try and bring in a Bill for housing we are at once told, "You are wrong; it is not housing, but wages ought to be raised." The exact measure which my hon. Friends are supporting at the moment is never the one which commends itself to the Government in power.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do me an injustice. I certainly did not intend to say a single word deprecating either administrative action, or any scheme which hon. Members opposite might bring forward. I only said that they must not lose sight of the wages question.
    Mr. HILLS: I quite accept the statement of the hon. Member. He did not, however, choose a very happy instance. He referred to the county of Durham. That county has two characteristics. In the first place, it is and has been for a long time the county that pays the highest agricultural wage, and it is also a county of high industrial wages. Yet what do we find? I appeal to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. T. Richardson). The county of Durham is a long way from ideal. In fact I submit that the housing question ought to be considered as a separate question. It does not depend upon wages. Go through all the districts of England, urban and rural, sparse and populous, low wages and high wages: you find it everywhere. I hope that we shall consider it as one integral question. One more reason that reinforces that view is that we cannot consider the question as if were a new matter, because we have the arrears of a great many years of bad administration to make up. I wish to say something about the administration of the Poor Law. We are precluded from dealing with the wider aspects of the question, as we cannot deal with any matter involving legislation; hence we have to confine ourselves to administration. I wel-
    1850
    come the statement made by the hon. Member for Whitehaven. He suggested that it is quite time that the word "destitute" was dropped out of our code. It is. "Necessitous" is a far better word, and corresponds much better with the facts. At present a man who is not destitute in the ordinary meaning of the word is still entitled to relief; but a relieving officer who does not know the law very intimately may put too strict an interpretation upon the word "destitute," and refuse relief to a man who by law is entitled to it. That can be dealt with by administration, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the point.
    In reference to deaths from or accelerated by starvation, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that there were ninety-eight such deaths last year, forty of which were in London. It is a very sad and remarkable fact that these deaths, on the whole, do not decrease in number, and it is a tragic comment on the increase of incomes assessable to Income Tax. I wish to make a suggestion to the Local Government Board. At present, in most cases, they send down an inspector to attend the inquest and make inquiries. I hope that that inspector really tries to get at the root of the matter, and reports to the Local Government Board in all cases whether Poor Law relief had been refused. I am inclined to think that in a great many cases some difficulty is put in the way of these men. I hope that the inspection is of a very strict kind, because, after all, it has been the boast of this country since the reign of Elizabeth that no one need starve, and yet we had ninety-eight deaths from starvation last year. It is sometimes stated at the inquests that there had been no application to the relieving officer. It does not always appear whether the man applied for the casual ward or not. That is a different thing. We know that in some cases the workhouse porter does refuse these men. All those cases ought to be reported to the relieving officer, but perhaps they are not. I suggest that the President might turn his attention to the question of relief in urgent cases. We have had quoted during the last few weeks a good many cases where men who have been refused relief have come to grief afterwards. I think that a little reminder to the boards of guardians, couched in the language of which we have heard this afternoon, would not do any harm, in fact, the more autocratic the better. One further point in this connection. At present

    1851
    it often happens that the same person is coroner and Poor Law official, or registrar of deaths and relieving officer. I hope the Local Government Board will reconsider their refusal to interfere in these cases. In the case of a death in the workhouse it clearly is not proper or in the public interest that a man who is an official of the workhouse should be placed in the position of having to decide on the cause of death.
    Mr. BURNS: The relieving officer is not an official of the workhouse in the sense indicated by the hon. Gentleman. The evidence of the relieving officer would not weigh as against that of either the nurse, the matron, the master, or the doctor; and, in the event of serious illness, above all an illness leading to death, the relieving officer would be put on one side altogether.
    Mr. HILLS: I entirely accept that. But the relieving officer is the servant of the guardians, and he is also the person who has to decide the cause of death. I do not think he is quite the man to be placed in that position. I do not think that he can fulfill those two functions properly. The practice is rather widespread, and probably we cannot make the change all at once. I suggest, however, that the matter ought to be considered, and I hope that some change will be made. The diet for casuals is really a scandal. Casuals have to do very hard manual labour; they have to break a certain quantity of granite. In one workhouse that I know there is a long row of cells like dog-kennels, with a door at one end, an iron grid at the other, and a heap of granite and a hammer on the floor. The casual is put into this place, the door is locked, and he has to break the granite until it is small enough to go through the grid. When I saw this place I thought I should be very sorry to have to break that granite, and I am sure that after I had broken it I should want a good meal. But all that these men get is 8 ounces of bread and a small piece of cheese. I do not want to attract casuals or to increase the cost, but I think that that is too small dietary. The scale of out-relief for children is much too low. I know what the President says. He takes the view that if you gave more the husband would spend it in drink or it would get into the husband's pocket.
    Mr. BURNS: I assure the hon. Member that I do not say that. The bulk of these children have no fathers, or the father has deserted the children and their mother. In these cases the guardians are specially instructed to be considerate both to the deserving wife and to the children in proportion as the father has been bad to them.
    Mr. HILLS: I know. But I have a very clear recollection of what occurred last year, and I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman declared that any increase of the out-relief would go as a subsidy to wages. I submit that if the Act is abused, it is not a reason for giving too small a scale of relief. All Acts are liable to abuse. I heard the other day of even the Insurance Act being used in the same way by a gentleman who, when his wife became entitled to maternity benefit, used the money for the purpose of eloping with another lady. I hope that that point will receive consideration. I come now to the question of the children. I hope that in future years the Local Government Board will publish in their Blue Book the Return given last year showing the number of children in the workhouse. At present this Return only comes up to the beginning of last year, and we do not know what, has been done this year. I hope that we shall get these figures, either in the form of a supplementary White Paper or in the Blue Book itself. I submit that we are not going very fast. My Noble Friend (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) has pointed out that only 2,000 children have been removed in some six years, and that if we go on at that rate it will take about twenty-two years to clear the ordinary wards of workhouses of children between the ages of three and sixteen years. I know that children must be in the workhouse for a short time; they must go there with their parents. But do not let us keep them there. Could not the right hon. Gentleman fix a time limit? It is the bad boards of guardians that are concerned. We have to exercise some moral pressure upon them. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell them in one of his circulars that unless they put their house in order within a certain time he will take serious measures?
    I was greatly interested in the report of Mr. Bushell, inspector for Kent and Sussex, which appears in the Poor Law Report of this year. It deals almost entirely with the children, and I think it may be taken as typical. He says that there are

    1853
    forty-seven unions in his area, of which only seventeen have separate children's homes. Those seventeen are the largest and the more progressive unions, such as Brighton, while the remainder are the small country unions, which have not the means, public spirit, or initiative to provide separate establishments for children. There is one small thing that might be done by the Local Government Board, a matter purely of administration. At the present time we take the children and train them particularly for the towns. We give them an education that unfits them for the country. It is a common complaint in all rural districts—you will find it on the part of the labourers, who pay a large part of the rates—that the children are trained so that they may be sent up to the towns where they are not wanted, and where they merely depress the labour market.
    Why should not some of the numerous children in the Poor Law schools be trained agriculturally? I do not in the least want, just because these children are paupers, to force them into a life that they do not want to have, but teachers can tell at a very early age what the bent of mind of a good many of these children is, and that many would take gladly to a country life. I believe it might do a very great deal of good if this suggestion were followed out. It would not be an expensive change. I believe money might even be saved. You would thus stop this system whereby we are making very bad townsmen out of children who would make very good countrymen. I have only touched the fringe of the subject, and that aspect of it which interests me, but my wishes go very much further than my words. We had hoped that the career of the President of the Local Government Board would have been marked by a comprehensive and sweeping reform of our Poor Laws. We had honed that he, with his great knowledge and energy, would have swept away a good deal of this lumber and would have scrapped a good deal of antiquated machinery. We have been disappointed. All we can do is to criticise his administration. We do hope, however, that the subject will not be entirely dropped, and we hope against hope that some day those of us who live long enough may see a real scheme of Poor Law reform!
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, because there are many Members
    1854
    of the Committee who feel as I do, that this is an opportunity which comes not every year, but only every two years for discussing this variety of subjects—of great variety, of great importance, of great complexity—and of discussing them at a time when it is impossible to deal with any one of them thoroughly, and equally impossible to discuss the relations that they have to each other. Yet those of us who are interested in local government, and whose idea of a Government Department that supervises local government is that it should be one to encourage local administration, and to help on all occasions—though of us who feel that welcome even the opportunity that we have here of saying for a moment or two, one or two things that occur to us in relation to this subject. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has quite exceptional personal advantages. He is popular with us all. He has that most dangerous of gifts, that he is not least fascinating when he is most wrong. Therefore it is extremely difficult to put to him or to the Committee those matters upon which one feels criticism should be the more stringent as one could do to a person who has less of that particular kind of armour. We all of us recognise his very wide knowledge of the problems of London, and his very genuine interest in the problems of the urban communities generally. We wish he had the same knowledge, and displayed quite as much interest in the problems of rural England—which are even more difficult, because of their geographical conditions, which are now in a somewhat critical stage because they await constructive action to a greater degree than the problems of the towns, and, therefore, because it is of more significance as to what the policy of the Local Government Board is in regard to rural matters than even in regard to urban.
    As I understand the province of the, Local Government Board it has to do the first place, and in a particular sense, with the Poor Law. It has a general power, as we know, of supervision over ordinary local government. It has special powers in regard to certain subjects, of which housing is the most important. In regard to the first of these, the Poor Law, I wish at once to say how much I appreciate, as other Members do, the success and ability of my right hon. Friend on the disciplinary side of the Poor Law.

    1855
    If there be, as there occasionally is, a board of guardians which deserves all the discipline than can be administered to them, no one can do it better than my right hon. Friend. In many of his appointments, in many of his personal selections of inspectors and others, we who know something of them and of their work applaud what he has done. That is only one side of the Poor Law. The other side is a side which we hope may be made steadily more humane, more progressive in the true sense of the word, and, if I may say so, may become less and less necessary, for the Poor Law is a Department of the State which ought to dwindle in importance as the State grows in prosperity and efficiency. The two things I have to say here are these: Those of us who read with interest the two Reports of the Poor Law Commission, and some of us in connection with different departments of local government with which we are concerned, did what we could to show our readiness to work in accordance with that Commission. We regret that the policy of my right hon. Friend, good in many ways, and always well-intentioned, does really appear, I fear, in its tendency not to get us nearer the time when there will be no workhouses, but to strengthen and make permanent the workhouse idea and the workhouse method. I hope, like the hon. Gentleman who just sat down, that we may be misunderstanding the right hon. Gentleman in taking that view, and we shall welcome from him later in this Debate assurances which will dispel those fears.
    There is another specific point, if the Committee agrees with me—as I hope they do—we want to limit the area of the Poor Law rather than to extend it. We now have that matter rising in connection with those problems of public health and public education, especially in regard to the children. Many of us watch with great anxiety the movements between the different Departments of the State as to which is to have the supervision of the lives of the children, of their health and education. I hope that here the President of the Local Government Board and the Board itself will have the courage to seek to get rid of control over the children, and pass it over to the Board of Agriculture, or the Board of Education, rather than to retain the children an hour longer than necessary under Poor Law conditions, or to be affected by the Poor Law. We want to get the child away as soon as possible,
    1856
    and as completely as possible, from all association with the Poor Law. That is all I venture to say now on that point. With regard to the second point, that of a general supervision over local government, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on, as I think, getting into more cordial relations with the different kind of local authorities. We welcome the Milk and Dairies Bill this Session as a great improvement on previous Bills, because it shows a greater disposition on the part of the Department to understand the point of view of those who know the different localities. Without ascribing to it any of the virtues or verbal inspiration, I desire to take this opportunity of bearing that testimony, and of assuring my right hon. Friend that it is more and not less an Act of Parliament because of its rapprochement with local administration. There have been other matters which bear out the same thing; and here I hope my right hon. Friend will not weary in well-doing.
    I wish he could find time, perhaps in the Recess when he has had his successful expedition with Foreign Military Manœuvres, and is of stronger and higher spirit in consequence, to come down and study county government as he has studied for many years the government of London. I can promise him a welcome from people of all shades of public opinion, because there is the greatest anxiety amongst those who are trying to do the work in the country to be understood by the head of the Department concerned. They ought to have, and know that they have, the sympathy of that Department in their efforts to carry out the law. I wish indeed the right hon. Gentleman's conception of his duties went a little further than that. We know how the President of the Board of Agriculture, not only the present but previous Presidents, has tried and fought the necessary battles with the Treasury to get financial support for stimulating and helping agriculture. We know how the same has been done to a certain extent by the Board of Education. One would like to see the Local Government Board making it perfectly clear that they were doing all they could to increase the resources available for local government, so that we who are specially concerned in local government really could feel that we had a champion in the person of the Minister who represents the Department. The last thing I shall trouble the Committee with is just one word on housing. We are all debarred from discussing the details of any Bill on housing. It is a

    1857
    good thing we are, because we are much more likely perhaps to say what is to the point than if we were discursive upon details. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to answer, will dispel another notion which I am afraid is prevalent outside, and not unknown in this House, or on this side of the House, that is against all and every kind of assistance from central funds to the problem of rural housing.
    Many of us on this side of the House have the greatest objection to specific provisions of certain Bills brought in recently. Whether we were right or wrong is not a matter for debate now. But I do hope we shall not have the responsible Minister allowing it to be thought that he, and still less the Government, have set their faces against the principle that you may have in certain parts of the country to encourage rural housing as you have had to encourage other necessary developments by methods which may be quite unnecessary when things are in working order, yet absolutely defensible when you are in the emergency that you are in at the present time. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the problem of rural housing is one of the most urgent and one of the most difficult. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other speakers this afternoon rehearse the difficulties which will occur if you do nothing, or if you do something, with the present Imperfect resources. All this surely ought to make the head of the Government Department, with these great administrative duties put upon him, ever ready to try some, new administrative experiment, or ready to acknowledge that his administrative power is not adequate, and to give real help to making legislative proposals on his own authority and with the weight of his influence. Those are the things which I desire to say. I say them to my right hon. Friend in a spirit of absolute friendliness, and with a very large degree of loyalty. I assure him that those who are not with him personally, those who are concerned with these problems in different parts of the country, are not satisfied with what has been done, are not too hopeful for the future. We do look to him to encourage us, to reassure us, when he replies to these questions.
    Mr. ASTOR: I agree with much of the criticism which has come from hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, but I wish to put before the Committee another side of the administration of the Local
    1858
    Government Board—that is to say, the administration of sanatorium benefit for tuberculosis. I would remind the Committee that sanatorium benefit, whether it be domiciliary or institutional, depends upon the Local Government Board and upon the President of the Local Government Board; therefore that the right hon. Gentleman is to a very great extent responsible for the present condition of sanatorium benefit, and the way in which we are dealing with tuberculosis in this country. I think it is no exaggeration to say that at the present time the conditions may be described as chaotic; there is great chaos and dissatisfaction throughout the country. I do not mean to say, dealing for the moment with purely insured persons, that they are not receiving some sort of sanatorium benefit, but I emphasise the fact that they are not getting that sort of sanatorium benefit for which they are paying, and there is a great differ once between what they are getting and what they are paying for. They are paying to get a particular sort of treatment and they are not getting value for their money, and I propose to bring forward a few cases to show that that is due to a great extent to the President of the Local Government Board. One has only to look through the various Parliamentary questions and answers to find I am not exaggerating when I say that at the moment insured persons are not getting full value for their money. I do not wish to labour the point unless hon. Members challenge that statement. I have been through the whole of the questions dealing with this matter lately, and I notice that in the replies we were told, "So-and-so is on the waiting list; So-and-so will get into an institution in two or three weeks' time." That is not what the individual is paying for. He was promised treatment of the right sort as soon as his case was diagnosed to be suitable for that sort of treatment. My charge, against the President of the Local Government Board is that to a great. extent he is to blame, in that he has not given an official and strong lead to the local authorities and the local insurance committees, and especially that he has been woefully slow in his administration of the Department on this question.
    I grant the enormous difficulties that have faced the right hon. Gentleman in the past few months; he had to bring in this new Act affecting millions of people and affecting new bodies, such as the local insurance committees. I grant that, I

    1859
    grant also that owing to the establishment of the Departmental Committee to advise the Government upon this question, on which I had the honour to serve, he was not able to begin dealing with the question until the end of April. But, after all, we prepared a great deal of the work he would have had to do otherwise, and therefore he cannot say if we had not been appointed that he would have begun dealing with the question many months sooner. I say, in spite of all his difficulties and the enormous problem he had to deal with, and I say it deliberately, that the sanatorium benefit which is now being offered to insured persons ought to have been better, and could have been better, if the right hon. Gentleman had been quicker in dealing with the matter. I dare say he will tell us that there are hundreds and thousands of beds that he has personally inspected. But the right hon. Gentleman is not an inspector of the Local Government Board. I am charging him as head of the Department. He has to organise and look ahead. Because the right hon. Gentleman goes on his holidays and follows manœuvres on foot, that does not qualify him to become the head of the War office and to prepare the strategy of the War Office. As a matter of fact, I should say that if as a pedestrian he is as slow as he is as administrator, the probability would be he would be following the manœeuvres a mile behind the last regiment. I do not propose to go scraping all over the country to bring accusations against the right hon. Gentleman. I propose to confine myself to facts connected with London and his central administration—facts to which there is no answer and which will prove to the Committee the appalling inefficiency of the Local Government Board in dealing with sanatorium benefit in the last few months.
    Several hon. Members who have spoken reminded the Committee of the special knowledge the right hon. Gentleman has of the administration and government of London, and one would have thought he would take particular pride in bringing about good machinery, good organisation, and good administration in London. It is the Metropolis, and one would have thought he would use the whole of his ability and energy to make London an example to the rest of the country, instead of making it a byword, as it is at the present moment. I have no hesitation in saying that the administration of sanatorium benefit in London is chaotic, and compares unfavour-
    1860
    ably with the rest of England, and that the right hon. Gentleman is largely responsible. Anyone who had to deal with this problem would have appointed at once a central and supervising authority to co-ordinate all the efforts and to, organise and do the thing in a businesslike manner. The right hon. Gentleman did appoint an authority, but he only appointed the London County Council as the supervising authority in the month of December. He ought to have appointed them in the month of May, and if he had not been able to screw himself up to do that in May he should have done, it in June or July or August or September, and not left it until December. I will put before the Committee the sequence of events in order that they should realise that I am not bringing a baseless charge. The Departmental Committee presented their Report in April, 1912. On 14th May the right hon. Gentleman sent a circular to the council of all the counties and boroughs, telling them what they had to, do, recommending the Report of the Departmental Committee, and in general approving of the recommendations contained in the Interim Report. He sent this circular to the council of all the counties and the boroughs except the London County Council. In July he sent round another circular, and similarly this time he sent it to the council of all the counties and the boroughs except the London County Council. He left the London County Council out altogether, and did not approach them as he did the other councils and authorities in May and July. On 19th October the right hon. Gentleman sent a letter to the London County Council, and I wish to read a part of the Report of the Public Health Committee of the London County Council in which they considered this letter from the Local Government Board. The Report of the Public Health Committee contains these words—
    "The scheme of supervision outlined in the Report of the Departmental Committee centres upon county councils and there is nothing in that Report inconsistent with the view that it was contemplated that in London, as in other parts of the country, the, authority to be entrusted with the organising and supervisory duties should be the county council. This is consonant with the special position held by the county council London with regard to public health. It is possible, therefore, that the Local Government Board, by its letter of 19th October. 1912, intend the council to fill this position, although it has not issued any definite instructions in the matter. It is obviously essential, however, that the intentions of the Board on this point should he made quite clear, and the necessary authority provided."

    1861
    That is to say, in October last the London County Council did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant them to be the central organising authority in London or not. I want to read an extract from the Report of the Public Health Committee of the London County Council of 12th December, in which they refer to another letter which they got from the right hon. Gentleman on 11th December:—
    "It appears to the Local Government Board that the London County Council should formulate and submit to them a complete scheme for the Metropolis … For this purpose the Local Government Board would desire to look to the London County Council, as they do to other county councils, to be the central organising body for the provision of institutional treatment, whether indoor or outdoor."
    The right hon. Gentleman in the month of December came to the same conclusion as everybody else would have in May. It was gross negligence on his part to wait until December to put before the London County Council that they were to be the chief authority to deal with tuberculosis. It is perfectly immaterial whether the London County Council may have done much or little since the month of December. I am not concerned to deal with that. I am not concerned to deal with their action after they were approached by the Local Government Board. I am concerned purely with the negligence of the right hon. Gentleman during the seven months that elapsed after the publication of our Interim Report, during which months the right hon. Gentleman ought to have appointed long before the month of December the London County Council as the central organising authority. I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House who sometimes criticise, the London County Council for not acting, will realise and appreciate the negligence of the right hon. Gentleman in approaching the London County Council. I wonder before they criticise the London County Council do they realise the deliberate slight put upon the county council by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It is possible he may tell us it was his intention to make the Metropolitan Asylums Board the central authority for London. If he ever contemplated that will he tell us so. I hope he will also tell the members of the London County Council in and out of this House that he intended deliberately to put them on one side and to make the Metropolitan Asylums Board the central authority to deal with tuberculosis. If he takes that line of reply I say by doing so he ignored the recommendation of
    1862
    the Departmental Committee which he himself accepted on behalf of his Department. Our Interim Report did not even suggest that the Metropolitan Asylums Board should deal with insured persons. We merely stated that there were a certain number of empty beds belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and that there were a large number of Poor Law cases that needed exceptional treatment. We knew the Metropalitan Asylums Board was a Poor Law authority, and therefore was specially debarred from dealing with the insured persons and giving them sanatorium benefit. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have realised in May that it was absolutely impossible for the Metropolitan Asylums Board to provide the institutional treatment required, because the Insurance Act specially debars Poor Law authorities from providing sanatorium benefit for insured persons. The average person would grasp that in a week or perhaps fortnight, but it took the right hon. Gentleman seven months to digest it.
    Mr. BURNS: I came to the same conclusion that you did in paragraph 24 of your own Report.
    Mr. ASTOR: If that is the case, it is no answer whatever to the charge I am making. The only possible answer the right hon. Gentleman had, was that he had an alternative to the London County Council. He now tells us he had no alternative.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman must not misconstrue what I said, and he must refresh his memory by looking up his own Report, and if he does he will come to the conclusion, that in considering sanatorium accommodation, at the suggestion of his own Committee, we had to attend beside other considerations, to the beds and accommodation of the Metropolitan Asylums Board.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. ASTOR: That is an entirely different point. We merely said we were not dealing with the Metropolitan Asylums Board as the co-ordinating authority. We did not even suggest that it should deal with insured persons. We merely said there were a number of empty beds belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The point which our Report was intended to suggest was that a certain number of Poor Law cases might very well be treated by the Metropolitan Asylums Board; but

    1863
    to suggest that we put forward the recommendation that the Metropolitan Asylums Board should deal with insured persons or be the central organising authority is a wilful misreading of the Report which we put before the public. Then there is the point of the domiciliary treatment of sanatorium benefit. Section 16 of the National Insurance Act says that the insurance committees shall make arrangements for providing domiciliary treatment.
    "with persons and local authorities other than Poor Law authorities undertaking such treatment in a manner approved by the Local Government Board which treatment it shall be lawful for a local authority, if so authorised by the Local Government Board to undertake."
    That is to say, the Insurance Act expressly says that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to approve the way in which domiciliary treatment shall be given, and that until and unless the Local Government Board approve of the method in which domiciliary treatment shall be given there shall be no domiciliary treatment lawfully available for insured persons. What was the position last June and at the beginning of July? Hon. Members opposite were being attacked because the sanatoria promised had not been built, and the answer invariably made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was, "Well, it is a great scheme. We admit we have not got all the benefits, but on 15th July we shall be able to provide domiciliary treatment for all insured persons. We cannot give institutional treatment, but we shall be able to give treatment at home." When this answer was made to the attacks, the Government were not reckoning with the slowness of the President of the Local Government Board. The Interim Report of the Departmental Committee came out at the end of April, and there were two months during which the right hon. Gentleman could have prepared his Order approving of domiciliary treatment. He ought to have done that in May, he might have done it in June, and he might even have done it during the first fortnight in July. Meanwhile insured persons were hoping to get this promised domiciliary treatment.
    The Order came, but it came on the 26th July, eleven days after the Act had come into operation, and eleven days after this form of sanatorium benefit in the shape of domiciliary treatment had
    1864
    been promised by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite. The President of the Local Government Board ought to have produced this Order for domiciliary treatment before 15th July, and the fact that it was not produced until 26th July means that insured persons were paying for sanatorium benefit which, owing to the slowness of the right hon. Gentleman, was not available for them. Legally no domiciliary sanatorium benefit could be given to any insured person until this Order was issued by the Local Government Board. If any hon. Member doubts that statement, I ask him to study the Order of the Local Government Board, and they will see that until it was produced and issued to the public no domiciliary treatment was available for insured persons who were paying for the treatment the whole time. I am not going to compare the slowness of the right hon. Gentleman to the slowness of the tortoise, because the tortoise, though it started slowly, reached its goal. The right hon. Gentleman started just as slowly as the tortoise, but he never got there. July 15th came, and there was no Order from the Local Government Board think hon. Members opposite, and especially hon. Members belonging to the Labour party, who claim to represent insured persons, are entitled to ask what was the right hon. Gentleman doing in May, June, and the beginning of July, that prevented him giving to the public and the House and insured persons this Order approving of domiciliary treatment of insured persons. It is no answer to say that he was off with the troops manœring, or tip-toeing shyly across the Lobby trying to avoid the gaze of admiring visitors.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman knows, and no man knows better in this country, what I was doing between 29th April and the date he mentioned in July. I was visiting many institutions, one of which the hon. Member himself is worthily connected with. I was more interested in providing beds for people who wanted them, than I was troubling whether I should issue an Order on 15th July.
    Mr. ASTOR: The hon. Member does not appear to grasp the nature of my charge.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member accused me of walking about with the troops. I was doing no such thing. I was visiting

    1865
    sanatoria and providing for the local authorities the best model and design which they could most readily adopt in order to grapple with this emergency problem.
    Mr. ASTOR: The right hon. Gentleman has a staff of inspectors, and it was their duty to inspect those places.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member knows that the whole of my able staff gave the whole of their time and the whole of their holidays doing this particular work, and many of them have been ill in consequence of the overwork they gave.
    Mr. ASTOR: The right hon. Gentleman has made no reply whatever. The Insurance Act says it is one of his duties to approve of sanatorium benefit, and until he approved of the nature of domiciliary treatment and laid down the lines on which domiciliary treatment was to be given, no such treatment was available for insured persons. My charge has been that in this matter he has acted as an inspector of the Local Government Board and not as the President. The right hon. Gentleman can only be compared to Obadiah's bull, which, though he never produced a calf himself, went about his business with such gravity that he obtained, and continued to command, the respect of the whole parish. The right hon. Gentleman in the administration of the Local Government Board does not produce calves, but he goes around looking so important that he impresses the public with the fact that he is carrying the weight of the whole nation. When the Prime Minister introduces the Insurance Amending Bill, he should insert a special Clause providing that the right hon. Gentleman in future shall not be so negligent and slow in dealing with tuberculosis as he has been in the past. It would have been easy for me and my hon. Friends to have harried the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past months on behalf of insured persons who were not getting the sanatorium benefit which had been promised. We could easily have done it, but we realised the danger of trying to rush this scheme into operation. The time, however, has now come to speak up and expose the sham and the chaos which, I contend, is very largely due to the slowness of the President of the Local Government Board. I have not indulged in vague charges. I have not searched the provinces and the minutes of
    1866
    county councils, and the correspondence they have had with the Local Government Board, but I have confined myself to facts to which there is no answer and which the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny.
    There is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman never approached the London County Council or invited it to supervise and organise and co-ordinate a scheme for dealing with tuberculosis in London until December, whereas he ought to have done it in May. Owing to the right hon. Gentleman going around the country inspecting the beds, instead of sending his staff to do it, he did not carry out the provisions in the Insurance Act—that before 15th July he should have told the insurance committees and the councils the way in which they should carry on domiciliary treatment. We have been silent because we expected the best, and he has not given us the best, or, if he has, then all I can say is his best is not good enough. We expect to have in the President of the Local Government Board a Gentleman with progressive ideas, but in the present holder of that office we have a sort of mid-Victorian reactionary. The right hon. Gentleman might have made an excellent administrator fifty or sixty years ago, but at the present moment he is an anachronism. I understand that some hundreds of years ago Moses was looked upon as a great lawmaker, but if he was to come forward now I should not accept him as the President of the Local Government Board, although think even Moses would be more progressive and more up-to-date than the present President. I ask the Committee to, realise that, owing to the slowness and inefficiency of the right hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Board during the past few months, insured persons have, been compelled to contribute for a benefit which is not worth the money they have been forced to pay. The sanatorium benefit, owing to the slowness of the right hon. Gentleman, has been a farce and the Local Government Board under the right hon. Gentleman's administration has been a failure.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: There is no hon. Member who is better qualified to speak upon this subject than the hon. Member who has just sat down. Having said that, I think it is a pity that the hon. Member should minimise his influence by a statement of his case which is obviously exaggerated, and I cannot but think that when the hon. Member reads his speech

    1867
    he will consider that he has not dealt fairly with the President of the Local Government Board. It is not for me to defend the right hon. Gentleman, for he will, I am quite sure, be able to do that for himself, but perhaps I may be excused for pointing out that there has been from the other side an attempt to damage a great scheme by laying hold of isolated cases and using them to damage the scheme without reference to the main provisions, which I contend are working well. The hon. Member dealt with the subject in its two branches, one the provisions of sanatoria and the other domiciliary treatment. In regard to the provision of sanatoria, he himself said that he had no complaint to make—at least, I do not regard him as having made any complaint—of the action of the Local Government Board. He said that he would give us concrete cases, and he gave us one. He said that every county council had received the circular from the Local Government Board. There is no credit at all, of course, to be given to a Department, but the one case where, as we understand from the hon. Member, the circular was not sent to be brought up and used as conclusive evidence of the bad administration of the Act by this Department.
    The hon. Member told us something about the Metropolitan Asylums Board, but I do submit that it would have been fairer, and he would have been more frank with the House, if he had explained to the House what he well knows, that in this particular matter the position in London is different from that in any other part of the country. We had got in London the Metropolitan Asylums Board, an institution of a kind that, so far as I know, does not exist anywhere else in this country. Technically it is a Poor Law authority, but it is not an ordinary board of guardians. It is not a body that runs a workhouse infirmary. It is a body that has been brought together, and upon which boards of guardians have their representatives, to deal with the treatment of disease in London, particularly infectious diseases, and I can understand, and I think the House will understand, that there were special circumstances which made it necessary that special consideration should be given to London. Frankly, I am bound to say it does seem to me that somewhere or other too much time was taken in clearing up the difficulty. I am bound to say that, but that is not the kind of
    1868
    case the hon. Member made against the Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it was."] The special case arose owing to the existence of this great institution. What would have happened if straight away the President of the Local Government Board had said, "The county council is to be the authority?" The county council would have done that which they have since done. They would have said, "What a ridiculous thing! There are all these great institutions with empty beds, and they are to be neglected and ignored. Owing to the action of the Local Government Board, special institutions have to be put up at the expense of the taxes and the rates." It must be clear that there is a condition of things existing in London which was not contemplated in the Insurance Act at all, and which did give rise to special difficulties in deciding the matter. I cannot remember now the exact terms of the first communication which the county council received from the Local Government Board, though I read it at the time, but I saw in that circular the clearest indication that the Local Government Board were appointing the London County Council as the authority to deal with the matter.
    Mr. ASTOR: 19th October.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Yes, and they pretended that they could not understand it, and they asked for further enlightenment upon it. Since then the London County Council have, in my view, neglected to make the provision that they well might have made, and, if there is any blame, that blame certainly has to be shared between the central and the local authority, the London County Council. The hon. Member has given this one instance of delay on the part of the Local Government Board. It is only fair that I should give my own personal experience, chairman of the Middlesex Insurance Committee, and as a member of the Middlesex County Council, of the treatment which has been afforded to us by the Local Government Board, and I will say that from the very first the Local Government Board have gone out of their way to facilitate in every way the provision which the county council made and for which it has to get their sanction. I have not known a Department that has been so free from red tape as the Local Government Board has been in its dealing with the only authority about which I can personally

    1869
    speak, the Middlesex County Council, in this particular matter. The hon. Gentleman brought up the question of domiciliary treatment. I do not know whether he intended it, but his reading of the circular would have led Members of the House to think that an insurance committee could not provide domiciliary treatment without the intervention of the local authority.
    Mr. ASTOR: Without the approval of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Without the approval of the Local Government Board, but certainly without the intervention of the local authority. What the Section provides is that the insurance committee can make arrangements with the public authority for domiciliary treatment if it so chooses, but it is "with any person or with any public authority," and, as a matter of fact, the insurance committees do not need the intervention of the public authorities, of county councils, to make provision for domiciliary treatment. That is an arrangement which is made by the insurance committee with the doctor—the general practitioner, who is treating the patient.
    Mr. ASTOR: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I read very carefully the Section in the Act:—
    "The committee shall make arrangements for domiciliary treatment with persons and local authorities in a manner approved by the Local Government Board, which treatment it shall be lawful for a local authority, if so authorised by the Local Government Board to undertake,"
    but only if so authorised. The whole of my charge was that the right hon. Gentleman did not authorise either local insurance committees or local authorities. The authorisation only came on 26th July.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: No machinery was necessary, and the day after the authorisation came the local practitioner could be empowered to provide domiciliary treatment. No one knows better than the hon. Member that round that question of domiciliary treatment the dispute between the medical profession and the Insurance Commission and the Local Government Board very largely turned, and that it was extremely necessary whilst that dispute was going on that nothing should be done by the Local Government Board
    1870
    which would prejudice the deal, if I may so put it, between the Commissioners and the medical profession; and he also knows that the medical profession have received sixpence out of the 1s. 3d. devoted to sanatorium benefit for domiciliary treatment. If this is the worst thing he can say about the administration—that the authorisation came five days after the Act came into force and that no preparation being necessary, at the most there was only five days' delay—then in view of the delicacy of the negotiations which were going on with the medical profession I am bound to say that I do not think his criticism really amounts to a very great deal. I wanted to ask the President of the Local Government Board a question which, I think, concerns a matter of vital importance I understand that tuberculosis may now be treated by two different kinds of authorities under the purview of the Local Government Board—the public health authority and the Poor Law guardians. This, in my view, is a matter of enormous importance affecting the local rates, and I should very much like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if I am right in this short presentation of the position, and, if so, whether he will make it his business to see that the authorities and the public clearly understand it?
    We require, as a result of the Insurance Act, institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis. The insurance committees could not put them up; they had not the money. It was necessary to find the money, and, Government money having been found, it was necessary that it should be administered through properly constituted local authorities. Having provided that tuberculosis should be treated at the expense of the public funds, the taxes and the rates, then the condition had to be made that for the authority to receive the Government Grant they must provide for the whole of the population. I think that I am righ—in fact, I feel certain that I am right—in saying that the offer to provide four-fifths and three-fifths of the total capital cost of these institutions has been made subject to the condition that the public authority will undertake the treatment of tuberculosis not only for insured persons, but for the whole of the community. When that offer was made the local authorities quite naturally said, "It is not only a question of capital cost. Who is going to pay the cost of administration and the cost of treatment?" The Government then

    1871
    decided to go a step further, and they said, "We will pay out of the Exchequer half of the cost of the treatment of tuberculosis carried on by these public health authorities." That brings me to this practical position, which I want to put to the President of the Local Government Board. Take the union of West Ham, or the Edmonton Union, in the county of Middlesex. At present, I suppose, there are scores of beds occupied in those workhouse infirmaries by paupers suffering from consumption who are treated solely at the expense of the local ratepayers of those unions. A Grant has now been promised to the Middlesex County Council towards the capital cost and the institutions are being provided, and an undertaking has been given to pay to the Middlesex County Council half the cost of the treatment of non-insured persons. Therefore, if those paupers in the Edmonton Union in Middlesex are treated by the Middlesex County Council under the terms of this offer, half of the cost of treatment will come from the Exchequer and the other half from the whole of the county rate.
    Do the guardians throughout the country, who are to-day treating tuberculosis cases in their Poor Law infirmaries entirely at the cost of the local ratepayers, realise that they are making the Government a present of half the cost, and that if those persons are treated by the public health authority half the cost of their treatment will come from the National Exchequer? I very much doubt whether the Poor Law authorities throughout the country realise that. If they did realise it, I think the President of the Local Government Board would find that the pressure brought to bear upon public health authorities to undertake this treatment would be such that he would be able to tell us that a great many more schemes had been passed and set in motion. I want to ask whether I am right in saying that to-day, if the public health authority treats consumptives, half the cost will be borne by the Exchequer; and whether, if they are treated by the Poor Law authority, the whole cost will fall upon the local rates, and, if so, whether that has been made quite clear to the Poor Law authorities and the public health authorities? We all say that we would prefer that the public health authorities should deal with
    1872
    the treatment of consumptives. The less the Poor Law has to deal with the treatment of the disease the better. I know of nothing which will tend to bring that desirable state of things about than to tell the boards of guardians in this country that they are robbing the ratepayers of half the cost of the treatment of tuberculosis paupers by not seeing that they are dealt with under the powers, which enable the Local Government Board to grant them half the cost out of the Exchequer.
    Mr. CAVE: The last point raised by the hon. Gentleman is of real importance, but I doubt whether anybody who heard the speech of my hon. Friend behind me will think that his criticisms on the sanatorium question have been in any wav answered. We shall all listen with interest to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on that matter, which is one we feel to be of very great importance. But I did not rise to speak on that point. I want to raise a new but a very short point, and I can do it in a few sentences. I want to refer to what is now becoming an old question; I mean the complaints which the vaccination officers make of their treatment by the Local Government Board. The point is very clear. When the Bill of 1907 was brought in, extending the opportunities for exemption from vaccination, a difficulty occurred at once to many of us. We foresaw that the result would be that this measure, which was considered to be a public benefit, would cause loss to the vaccination officers. The point was raised in this House, and I put down an Amendment, the effect of which would have been that, whereas the officers were paid by fees for certificates of vaccination, or by salaries founded on those fees, they would, if the Amendment had passed be entitled to similar fees for certificates of exemption from vaccination, Consequently the Bill would not cause very serious loss. But it was impossible to move that Amendment in this House. It was, however, moved in another place, by Lord Camperdown, and the answer given was this. Lord Allendale said it was not anticipated, as pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the number of persons who would obtain certificates of exemption on account of conscientious objection would be materially increased. That was one objection raised when the Act of 1898 was passed, but it did not prove to be the case, because the number of applications for exemption had remained steady, varying from 5 to 4.8 per cent. Lord Camperdown added that if the remunera-

    1873
    tion of vaccination officers, who were paid by fees, was considered inadequate, the fees might be increased, either by the guardians, with the approval of the Local Government Board, or by the Board itself. The answer given was clear. It was not expected that the number of exemptions would increase, but if they did, the officers would be looked after by the board of guardians.
    What happened? The number of certificates of exemption increased enormously. There has been a steady and constant increase in the percentage. It went up at once in 1908 to 17.3 per cent. In the following year it was 20.9. In the next year, 1910, it was 25.7. In 1911 it rose to 28.2, and this year the approximate figure will be, according to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, 31.6; in other words, an increase from about 5 per cent. to over 31 per cent. Thus the first answer given by Lord Allendale has proved to be wholly falsified, and our anticipations are realised. I come to my second question: Did the Local Government Board take steps towards seeing that these men are properly treated. The answer to that, I am sorry to say, is "no," and I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why he has taken the line he has. What he has said to officers who applied to him is this, "I will not help you. Go to your boards of guardians, and apply to them for compensation, or for an increase of salary." I do not think that answer is fair to either side. To begin with, the guardians themselves, quite naturally, are desirous of sparing the rates, and they look with reluctance on any application for compensation or for an increase of pay. The result is, when the men go to the guardians—and they are very reluctant to do so—in many cases they do not succeed. There have been cases where some small sums have been paid as compensation, but in others nothing at all has been given. In some of the latter cases the right hon. Gentleman himself has intervened. He has written to the guardians and said, "We think the officer deserves consideration, and that you should pay the compensation or give an increase of salary." But the guardians have absolutely declined to accept the recommendation of the Local Government Board, and I can understand why they have done so. Some of them do not want to increase the rates; others, apparently being opposed to vaccination, take it out of the vaccination officers, and decline to increase any payment made under the
    1874
    Vaccination Act. The result is quite plain. The figures show that these men, who were doing their duty as vaccination officers, are suffering under an Act for which, of course, they had no kind of responsibility, and which was supposed to be passed for public purposes.
    I decline to mix this up with the question of vaccination or exemption from, vaccination. The question I am bringing before the Committee is purely and simply a question whether public officials shall suffer by a reform or change. I do not believe that because of this reform or change in the law, which was made for public reasons, these public officers ought to be allowed to suffer. They raised the point at the time. They were told that they would not suffer, and that, if they did suffer, they would be looked after. They did suffer, and they have not been looked after. That is the whole of the case on which I rely, and I think it demands an answer. I have figures here, which I can read if required, showing the exact amounts which men have lost by this Act. The amounts may not appear to be substantial to some hon. Members, but they are substantial to those who have to live on very modest incomes. I have cases in which the loss has been £59, £70, £64,. £100, and so on. These are the sums they have lost by the Act. They are not getting the money back. In many cases the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, by his, letters to the guardians, that justice ought to be done to these men, and the guardians have refused to accept his recommendation. In other cases he himself has refused to assist the men. I want him to say why. I put the question with great personal respect for him, but I do not understand his action in this matter. I am inclined to think it is pure obstinacy, and that, having once said he would not help, he declines to listen to reason. But he must listen to reason in this House. He must give us some kind of answer. Having put my point to him, I will suggest to that he may deal with the matter quite simply by a General Order. I believe he has power to do it. He said himself, and Lord Allendale said, that he had power to, make a General Order under which an increase of pay or compensation would be given to each of these men, credit, of course, being given for any sums they may be receiving. If the right hon. Gentleman will make an Order of that kind, he will satisfy a great many people and will remove a genuine grievance.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I want to refer specially to the treatment of children under the Poor Law. But before doing that I would like to call attention to a few remarkable figures relating to the decrease of pauperism during the last thirty or forty years. They are interesting figures, and will perhaps impart a touch of optimism which will do no harm. In 1873 there were in Great Britain thirty-five paupers per thousand inhabitants. In 1908, the year in which the present President of the Local Government Board assumed office, there were twenty-three, and in 1913, this year, the number is 17.4 per thousand—that is to say, that at the present date, and during the lifetime of both of us, there has been a decrease of pauperism by more than one-half, and I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that, during his term of office, he has seen the figures decrease so very largely. The question which I wish particularly to call the Committee's attention to is that of the treatment of children known as Poor Law children. They are orphans, and deserted children who are looked after by the guardians.
    What I wish to emphasise, as I have often done before, is the great advantage of the boarding-out system in the treatment of these poor little destitute children. One great advantage is that they are able to live a home life. The foster-mothers are carefully chosen. The children are brought up to understand, and are educated in the ordinary duties, and enjoy the ordinary pleasures of home life. They are able to go to the ordinary school, instead of to schools connected with Poor Law institutions. One great advantage of the boarding-out system is that it takes the child away from the workhouse institutional influence. Those who have carefully studied the welfare of children must be well aware of the numbing influence of the barrack system on the intellectual development of children. Another point which is not sufficiently realised by a great many persons interested in the Poor Law is the comparative cheapness of boarding out. The cost is less than one-half of that incurred in keeping the same children in institutions. It is not only a better system but a very much cheaper system. Another point is, and it is one I think of great importance, that under the boarding-out system children are much freer from ordinary contagious and infectious diseases than when congregated together
    1876
    in large masses. So that on all hands the boarding-out system is superior to the institutional system. I should also like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that during his term of office many more children have been boarded out than formerly, and that there are now many fewer in the workhouses. There is a great improvement going on almost daily. At the present time there are 11,000 children boarded out, but, unfortunately, only a little over 2,000 of those are boarded out in country districts. I want to lay special emphasis on the importance of placing these children in country districts, that is to say, boarding them out beyond the unions as much as possible. In the country districts there are committees of ladies, resident in those districts, who take a special interest in each individual child, which means that the children are brought up in the best possible manner, and, through that individual interest being taken in them, they are taught to earn their living in the country, instead of coming back to the towns to increase the congestion which already exists there. There are 9,000 boarded out practically in, the towns or within the unions. I would specially ask the President to endeavour to increase the number of children boarded out without the unions, and to decrease those within the unions as much as possible.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Are not the unions in the country as well as in the towns?
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: There are two boarding out Orders, one for within the unions and one for without. I think I am correct in saying that only 2,000 children are boarded out in the country, and that the others are more or less in the towns. An hon. Member opposite pointed out the small payment made to the foster parents of these children. In some cases it is only 3s., and in other cases less. That is too small an amount, and it would be much better if it were increased. Beyond the unions they generally get about 5s. a week, and considering that these foster mothers have to look after the children, feed and clothe them, it is quite little enough. There is another way of dealing with these children to which I would call attention that is the alternative of emigration. The Committee will be aware that there are far more male than female emigrants; indeed, according to figures I have collected, during the last twenty or

    1877
    thirty years twice as many males have gone from these shores to our Colonies than females. I think it would be an extremely good thing if the Local Government Board could encourage the emigration of young girls to the Colonies more than the emigration of boys. If good homes are found in the Colonies, especially on farms in some of them, the girls would be welcomed there and well brought up, and in the course of time they would marry and rear British children with British sympathies. What we are doing now is sending boys away to Colonies where there is a surplus of men, and we are keeping the girls at home, where there is a surplus of women. I hope these points will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will be good enough to say something in reply to them.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I intervene in this Debate for three reasons; in the first place, because I was the author of the Act in regard to which the question now before the Committee is being raised; secondly, because I desire to call attention to the claims of the officers, in regard to which I entirely and heartily support what fell from the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave); and, thirdly, because I desire to make some observations upon the effects of the administration of the President of the Local Government Board and upon the progress of vaccination under the Act. May I remind the Committee that when the Act was first passed it was followed by a very large and striking increase of vaccination. With the permission of the Committee I will give a few instances which will bear out most strongly what I say. Later on I propose to deal with the question of the great increase in exemptions under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and so to show what I think is the most unfortunate position of vaccination at the present time. In one of the East End Metropolitan unions, shortly after the passing of the Act, the number of vaccinations in the twelve months ending September, 1898, performed by public vaccinators was 336, but in the twelve months ending the following September they were 1,130, or four times as numerous as they had been previously. In ether unions in the Metropolis there were 1,181 public vaccinations in the first nine months of 1898, and 2,041 in the first four months of 1899. Those are the figures for the Metropolis, and a number of others could be quoted. I come to the unions of
    1878
    Yorkshire, and I find the primary vaccinations performed by the public vaccinators in the East Riding for the three months ending September, 1899, was 60 per cent more than in the like period of 1898. That was the progress of vaccination which was going on immediately after the passing of the Act. Concurrently with that, the position with regard to exemptions was very satisfactory indeed. I know it was thought at the time by many who were very desirous to see vaccination carried out that the admission of what was called the conscientious objector would probably prove to be extremely disastrous to their views. But it had exactly the opposite effect.
    I will tell the Committee why it had that effect, and this information I had myself from the vaccination officers of the country. They came to me shortly afterwards and said that the Act which had just been passed, instead of being a failure, as was predicted, had been one of the most remarkable successes ever known. They said, "Now we have an opportunity of explaining the truth about vaccination to the mothers, and they are no longer obliged to go to vaccination stations, where all the anti-vaccinators were congregated ready to poison their minds, but we go to the homes, and the moment we tell the truth to these people, as contrasted with the statements of the anti-vaccinators, the first thing they do is to tear up the certificates before our eyes and agree to their children being vaccinated at once." Let me say a word or two as to the effect of the Act upon exemptions. In 1899 there were 32,000, in 1900 39,000, 1901 41,000, 1902 33,000, 1903 37,000, and 1904 39,000. Then the present Government came in, and they went up at once, or almost immediately afterwards, to 52,000. I turn to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to question put in the House of Commons not very long ago, and I will tell the Committee what the progress has been since then in the opposite direction. Instead of the exemptions being satisfactory in the view of those who think that vaccination ought to be practised in the country, the result of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, has been exactly the opposite. In 1906 the exemptions were 52,000, in 1907 57,000, in 1908 162,000, which was a sudden and great increase from the previous year. That was the effect of an alteration in the law passed by the right hon. Gentleman, by which a statutory declaration took the place of having to go before the magistrate

    1879
    for a certificate. I presume it must have been done with that special object or intention, or, if it was opposed to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, a greater mistake he could not have made. In the next year the number went up to 190,000, in 1910 to 230,000, in 1911 248,000, and in 1912 to 276,000. What does that mean?
    8.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us particulars as to the percentage of exemptions to the birth rate. It is 31.6. In other words, under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman during the last few years the matter has reached this point, that nearly one-third of the whole of the coming population at the present time are absolutely unvaccinated. All I can say is that if the right hon. Gentleman desires to see the Act carried out, if he desires vaccination to make progress in this country, if he desires to see what has been proved to be a great safeguard against small-pox extended, no man could possibly have administered an Act of Parliament worse. So much for administration. The figures alone that I have given are an absolute condemnation of the administration of this Act if it be the desire of those who administer it to encourage the progress of vaccination throughout the country.
    Let me say one word as to the claims of the officers. I think the officers have been most harshly treated. There was a change in the law, and they were afraid of the change. They were told they would not lose, and that if they did lose it would be made up. They have lost, and it has not been made up. Can anything be more unfair to these men? What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion? These were his words:—
    " I have no more direct or absolute power to order and direct the different forms of remuneration of vaccination officers than I have to order the town councils to give to their engineers or any other of their officers any remuneration that I please."
    He may not have any direct or absolute power to order or direct the remuneration of vaccination officers. Whether it be direct or not I do not know, but that it is absolute I do know, both from past experience of my own and also from the statement made by the representative of the Local Government Board in the House of Lords in 1907. Let me remind him of this. Upon an. Amendment moved to
    1880
    secure to the vaccination officers adequate remuneration, if there was any doubt about it, on the 8th August, 1907 in another place,. the representative of the Local Government Board in that House used these words:—
    "The vaccination officers were paid by fees, but he would remind Lord Camperdown that, if this remuneration was considered inadequate, the fees might be increased either by the guardians with the concurrence of the Local Government Board or by the Board itself."
    How is the right hon. Gentleman get away from such a statement as that? I have just verified that statement in the House of Lords, and a most positive assurance was given that that was so. On the faith of that assurance an Amendment was withdrawn, and also on the faith of something that fell from the Leader of the Liberal party in the House of Lords immediately afterwards. It was withdrawn, and then the right hon. Gentleman says if he does not do this it is because he has not the power to do it. It is not that he has not the power; it is that he has not the will. I think it is treating these officers most unfairly, and I hope the House, if they ever act independently of party feeling, will make up their mind on this occasion to do something which is only just, fair, and right in the interests of some of the most deserving public servants in the country, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall most heartily vote for the Amendment.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about vaccination, in regard to which I will only say that his speech appears to me to be absolutely destitute of any suggestion as to the nature of the improvement of the administration which he desires. I have only a word also to say on the question of vaccination officers. It appeared to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) was rather lacking in his usual tact when he accused the President of the Local Government Board of being an obstinate man. I have generally found that the very last way to get anything out of an obstinate man is to tell him that he is obstinate. If you speak soothingly to him, you may probably get your case considered. The case was very well put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope the President will consider it. I believe there is a case for consideration for these men, and I hope he will examine the action of the boards of guardians and

    1881
    see that all cases of real hardship are speedily dealt with. I believe there are eases of real hardship which require his attention, but I wish rather to refer to the cases children in workhouses. I appeal to the President, as far as he can, to hasten the extinction of the system of retaining children in workhouses. A year ago he mentioned several boards of guardians which had practically flouted the recommendation of the Local Government Board. In the twelve months that have elapsed some progress has been made, but there are still flagrant offenders. Kidderminster remains unmoved, and Weymouth and Dover, Gainsborough, Swaffham and Colchester. Altogether, I think the progress is rather slow. According to the figures I have, in 1910 there were 14,450 children in workhouses, in 1911 13,277, on 1st July, 1912, even a slight increase, 13,419—not an increase of boards, but those boards who still retained them had more children in them. I know and I am thankful for the efforts which have been evidenced by the inspectors of the Local Government Board. The Board has, through its inspectors, pressed the views of the Board as to the necessity for getting children out upon boards of guardians, but in the backward unions their efforts have had very little success, and it is precisely in these unions which seem to care least for the child's life that retaining them there is most hurtful.
    In March last, the inspector of the Eastern Counties reported that there were thirty-two children of school age in the Wisbech Workhouse. I do not much like mentioning districts individually by name, but I know that in some cases where that has been done the public attention which has been called has had its effect. In this workhouse, the children are retained, although actually the workhouse itself is overcrowded, and there are only 234 beds for 252 inmates. There are thirty-two children, of which fourteen boys are amongst the men. They are not efficiently classified in the daytime. In the girls sleeping room there are seven beds and one mattress on the floor for fifteen girls. The room in which they sleep is used by day and by night, and the girls day room is the sewing room of the workhouse. This workhouse is one of the most undesirable institutions in which to bring up children. The accommodation provided for them is most inadequate in every respect, and also the attention given to them. "It is
    1882
    evident," says the inspector, "that little or no interest is paid to their lives by the guardians. No system of classification of inmates is attempted, the good, the bad, and the indifferent are herded together, and there is no employment given to the inmates." That is not a satisfactory condition in which to bring up children and fit them to take part in the battle of life. In Mitford, there are sixteen children of school age. This is how the boys live:
    "The boys are in a room with a brick floor, cold, cheerless and dismal, looking out on a gravel yard surrounded by high brick walls."
    That is not a proper condition for children to be brought up in.
    "The boys have to traverse two open yards, a distance of 200 feet, in all weathers for their weekly tub on a Saturday morning. A pauper attends to them. The girls sleep in a huge room in a house adjoining the matron's quarters. There is no industrial training and no special attendance. There is nothing elevating, no home influence, nothing whatever to fit them for the battle of life before them."
    At Tendring we have another instance of vacillating inefficiency. Since 1908 they have been considering the question of a cottage or two. First they would, then they would not, then they would again, then they would not, and now they almost seem to be in the humour, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take them whilst they are in the humour. There is no classification on the men's side, and there are seventeen boys there. I am glad to notice that the Local Government Board inspector is pressing the matter. At Smallborough there is another case of almost impudent and contemptuous evasion of the Local Government Board and of persistent flouting of public opinion. In February the Local Government Board directed attention to the fact that, thirty-one children over three were in the workhouse, and directed their attention to the Local Government Board's letter of three years ago. The board of guardians replied that they were dealing with the question. Some children are to be boarded cut and others are to be sent to a training ship. The guardians must know perfectly well that children who can be boarded out or sent to a training ship are only a portion, possibly much less than half the children under their care. Then there is Rye which is contumacious. I should like to draw attention specially to Rye. They think the administration of the right hon. Gentleman is like that of sleeping dog, and they are going to let him lie. Rye is unanimously resolved, notwithstanding the pressure that has been brought to bear upon them, to make

    1883
    no change. I do not think they are just in calling the right hon. Gentleman a sleeping dog because, at all events, he has barked, though there seems to be a doubt whether he will bite. But Rye knows better than all the rest of the Kingdom. The methods of Queen Elizabeth or before are good enough for Rye. At Camelford in April of last year the inspector finds that the day rooms are no better than they used to be. The floors were cracked and had holes, and the only provision for the boys and girls to sit down was a very broken bench. The matron told him that everything in this way was broken. What possibly can be produced but flabby, inefficients and unemployables of boys and girls treated in this way? It is not merely the fact that the children are not well attended to; it is the moral effect upon them of the inefficiency. The child ought to be brought up with a view to trying to secure efficiency and to produce that which is excellent and commendable, and these children who are brought up in these conditions can face scarcely anything but failure. If they do face anything but failure, one may almost say it is a miracle. I hope the President will pay attention to some of these cases even more persistently than he has done.
    There is another point I wish to press upon the Department and that is the policy, which I thought had been entirely superseded, of sanctioning the expenditure of money in providing separate accommodation in the workhouse itself, or in erecting buildings for them in the workhouse grounds. I hope that policy will not be continued, though in isolated instances it appears still to be happening. At Wellington, the guardians are seeking the permission of the Department to spend just under £1,000 in this way. This expenditure will not separate the boys and the girls from workhouse influences. There are only twenty-three, and to expend this much would, given another scheme, put them in proper conditions. Another board of guardians, Hambledon, in Surrey, are spending £1,800 in housing twenty-four children.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. (By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL [Lords]. (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BOOTH: I want to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question whether the matters dealt with in this Bill are really not more suitable for a public Bill than a private Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is on the border line, and certainly if it is discussed in the way my hon. Friends wish, the discussion will involve questions in which the public are interested. I am in a position of great perplexity as to, whether it should or should not be a public Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill deals with private interests, and it seems to me it is properly a private one. As the Debate develops I may see that it has some public bearing, but I confess that at present I do not see that it involves public interests.
  Mr. BOOTH: One reason why I have raised this point is that we have had Memoranda, some for and some against the Bill. The first point stated by those who have circularised us against the Bill is that it involves an Amendment to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877, and that, therefore, the Amendment of the Act should be made by a public, and not a private Bill. I wished to see what foundation that objection had.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day three months."
  I make no apology for drawing the attention of this House to a remarkable Bill a Bill, in my opinion, the like of which we have never seen before, and the like of which I hope we shall often see again, for although I have a formal notice on the Paper to decline to proceed with the Bill, yet, on further consideration, I do not intend to press my opposition to a Division. I wish, however, that so important and interesting a Bill as this should get some consideration from this House. In the

  1885
  first place, let me point out that this Bill is the first instalment of reform from Oxford University that we have had during the last few years. When Lord Curzon a few years ago, I think in 1907, was elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford a new era, seemed to dawn for that university. He took up the work with great enthusiasm, with the great ability which we all acknowledge, and with the great authority which naturally pertains to him. A short time after he was elected Chancellor he published a book entitled "Principles and Methods of University Reform." I must say this book filled me with new enthusiasm for my Alma Mater—an enthusiasm which has gone on, though hope has been deferred, since that time, because in that book he sketched a whole series of wide reforms of a very democratic nature and of a very radical character. I am sorry to say that none of them has hitherto been brought into operation. I do not think that is Lord Curzon's fault, and I do not think that it is the fault of the resident members of the university. I am inclined to think it is chiefly the fault of that unfortunate body called Convocation, which is not connected really with the university at all, but which acts as a sort of House of Lords, and intervenes as soon as any reform is carried in Oxford itself. It has gone up in large numbers, and has repeatedly during the last few years altogether stopped the hope of any reform at all in Oxford.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether in discussing this Bill, which seems to me to deal with only one of the colleges at Oxford, it is in order to discuss Convocation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Gentleman was simply referring to Convocation by way of exordium.
  Mr. KING: You have quite correctly interpreted my position. What I have said is really by way of exordium, and in order that those less acquainted with this large and complex subject might know where they were. I must really be allowed to give a little historical résumé because this Bill explicitly refers to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877, and the Statutes which grew out of that Act. First of all, I believe that the point taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) is quite right. This Bill does in a way modify and alter the decisions of that public Act, and in so far as it does so I
  1886
  think it is out of order. I do not press that because I wish to discuss the new provisions of the Bill which, in many ways, are excellent. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Anson) will explain why they are proceeding by private Bill rather than by public Bill. We have had a number of Bills brought by the charity commissioners dealing with what are really private interests, but they are dealt with in public Bills. I think this, is really on all fours with that legislation. Moreover, it definitely grows out of a public Act, and in one respect modifies its provisions. I therefore invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain why they are proceeding by a private Bill.
  The second question which the right hon. Gentleman has to answer is: Why in this Bill is he going entirely contrary to the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of his own University in the book to which I have referred 4 Lord Curzon tells us what the future ought to be for St. Edmund Hall, and says on page 62:—
  "upon which sentence of ultimate absorption was passed by the last Royal Commission, though an effort is now being made to save its independent existence, and there may be many who think that with some improvement it might be rendered of great advantage to poor men."
  Why should that judgment of Lord Curzon be thrown overboard, and an entirely new scheme for St. Edmund Hall, in the nature of a private Bill, be put before the House?
  St. Edmund Hall is the last remaining academical hall in the university. There is no other institution like this at Oxford or Cambridge at the present time. For myself I am sorry that, it is to be continued at all, but if it is to be continued, I would be very glad to take money from rich rural parishes for the educational purposes of that hall, and that is what this Bill does. But I see no reason why it should be continued at all, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain. An academical hall—and this is the only one remaining—is an institution which has no, foundation, and practically no recognised corporate authority or existence. St. Edmund Hall is an old building, and an old foundation, though it is not a corporate body, and in this hall from time to time a certain man is placed as principal. The present principal has been there since 1856, and therefore he is a very honoured and experienced gentleman—I have nothing to say against him—but there is no wealth attached to a hall as there is to a college. The principal of St. Edmund Hall is appointed by Queen's College,

  1887
  which is in close proximity just across the way, and when once appointed he has power to admit students and fix the fees they shall pay. He has to see that they behave properly, and that they get some sort of instruction, and eventually to present them for degrees if they can be got up to pass the examinations. These halls have done in the past a certain amount of good by providing places where poor men can come, men very often not only poorly equipped in this world's goods, but poorly equipped intellectually also, and by making special terms with the one man, they have been able to become members of the university, and in some cases have taken their degree.
  At the present time, St. Edmund Hall has fifty-four undergraduate members, but it has only sixty-three graduate members, that is nine more graduates than undergraduates. These figures are very remarkable. Every college ought to pass a number of undergraduates into the ranks of graduates every year, and the graduate members of a college or hall ought to, and in almost all cases do, exceed by many times the number of undergraduate members. The right hon. Gentleman may say that a number of graduates have taken their names off the books. That may be so. They do not show enough interest in the hall to keep their names on the books in considerable numbers are told that the reason why an attempt is being made to maintain the separate existence of St. Edmund Hall is because a large number of the members have an enthusiasm for the old place of learning. If that were so they would keep their names on the books, but they do not. That makes another reason why the course adopted by this Bill in continuing the separate existence of St. Edmund Hall against the opinion of the Chancellor of the University, and of the Royal Commission, has no justification. I come now to the special nature of this particular case. In the year 1763, an old member of Queen's College made a will, by which she left £1,000 for the university, with the wish that a living was to be bought and held in conjunction with the principalship of St. Edmund Hall. That sum, after the death of the pious donor, accumulated for a number of years. It was not, until 1821 that the living of Gatcombe was actually purchased, and it, was not until three years afterwards that the first presentation took place, and the
  1888
  present occupant of the office, the principal of St. Edmund Hall and Rector of Gatcombe, is only the second man who has been appointed to this living under the will of the pious founder.
  The third question I have to put to my right hon. Friend is this: He, I believe, respects pious founders, and especially the wills of pious benefactors, to his and my university. Here is a pious benefactor whose benefaction only came into operation in 1824. Why does he want already to sweep it entirely away? In this matter I am a better Conservative than he. This Bill proposes that the pious benefaction which gave to St. Edmund Hall the Rectory of Gatcombe shall be subverted and the two offices shall not be held in common in future. There may be reasons in favour of that which I quite recognise. I am myself against pluralities, and I think most people are, but if the present principal of St. Edmund Hall is against pluralities, he should not be such a pluralist himself. I want to speak of Dr. Moore, the present head of St. Edmund Hall, with all possible respect. He is a most distinguished gentleman, and a very great Italian scholar, and one of the greatest authorities on Dante in the world—I believe one of the greatest authorities on Dante who have ever lived—but he is not only the head of St. Edmund Hall and Rector of Gatcombe, he is also Canon of Canterbury. If you want to abolish pluralities, here is your opportunity. Suppose we admit the whole case, with all its specious and objectionable incidents, and suppose we admit the principle that the two offices of Rector of Gatcombe and head of St. Edmund Hall should be separate, why, in doing so, do you take £150 from the rural parish and give it to Oxford University? Remember what that money is. It is the original ancient foundation, the property of the parish, and the endowment of the parish.
  Only six months ago, in January of this year, we on this side, in connection with the Welsh Church, proposed that ancient endowments should be transferred to the University of Wales; and I have here a Report of the Debate on the 17th January, when the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst), who is a moderate man, and does not generally indulge in violent language, spoke of the proposal as a "breach of trust, a sacrilege, a robbery of the Church, and a robbing of God." I am delighted to think that this practice that was denounced by hon. and right hon.

  1889
  Gentlemen opposite six months ago is adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) as the principle of this Bill. As a matter of fact, I think the House ought to assent to a Second Reading of the Bill if one or two modifications are made in it. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he ought to take £150 from this parish and give it to the head of St. Edmund Hall? If he were to give it to the poor students, then I should be with him, but I am not in favour of giving it to the head of St. Edmund Hall. I am emboldened to say so because the Oxford University Commissioners in 1877, as I have already mentioned, said that St. Edmund Hall was not to be united with Queen's College until twenty-four exhibitions of £25 a year were established for the poor students. That has not been done. I submit that in bringing forward this proposal the right hon. Gentleman must advance a good deal in the way of defence of it before it can be accepted in this house. I have put an Instruction on the Paper that the Bill shall only become operative when those exhibitions for poor students are found. Upon that subject I have more to say later on, because I dare say we shall on this side of the House be content to give a Second Reading to the Bill. We are here in considerable numbers. Many hon. Members on this side take a very keen interest in the Bill, and, as far as I can see, only one or two Members for the universities are here. There are two University Members who have been whipped up.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. On what ground does the hon. Gentleman make the observation that I have been whipped up? Not a word has passed between the right hon. Member for Oxford University and me.
  Mr. KING: I apologise if I have said anything at all offensive, but it is quite notorious that a Whip has been sent out to every Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] A statement, then, has been sent out to every hon. Member in this House, and it ends with the request, "In these circumstances it is respectfully asked that the Bill may he read a second time." I have received a great deal milder Whips than that. I really do earnestly and seriously put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there are many points about this Bill which require modification. He is a very reasonable man. I am one of his constituents,
  1890
  and although I do not always agree with him, yet, personally, I entirely respect him, and I shall listen most patiently for his explanation, but that explanation must be forthcoming before the Bill gets a Second Reading.
  Mr. LEACH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This Bill has in it, it seems to me, many excellent proposals. It does away at least with one plurality. These pluralities in connection with ecclesiastical affairs have ever been offensive to a great many people. This Bill will do away with one. Then it provides that the clergyman, who is rector of this parish, shall reside among his people. That, also, I think, is a very excellent improvement. For a great part of the year, in the case of the present holder, it would be impossible for him to reside among his people, and this Bill provides that he shall live in his parish, or near to his parish. In the next place, it provides £150 a year for the chaplain of St. Edmund Then, if I correctly understand the Bill, or if I am correctly informed—I do not see it in the Bill, though I am told it is what it means—the Bill recognises the right of a layman to be appointed as chaplain—[An HON. MEMBER: "Principal."]—of St. Edmund Hall, and this widens the field of selection. May I refer to what I conceive to be objections to the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very objectionable that this measure should be called a private Bill rather than a public Bill. Then it takes from this parish of Gatcombe, in the Isle of Wight, £150 a year, and hands it over to the University of Oxford, though I think that Oxford is rich enough already. The next objection to the Bill is that it will withhold from the parishioners of Gatcombe the right to appoint their own chaplain. I do not propose to elaborate that point, but I think that the parishioners should be given the right to select the clergyman who is to guide them. I agree with all that the Mover of the Amendment has said, but so far as I am personally concerned I have no wish to push the matter to a Division. I hope that the Bill may get a Second Reading, and the House can proceed to deal with it afterwards.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I am quite prepared to offer the explanation that hon. Members desire in respect of this Bill. I am sorry the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) regarded the statement which

  1891
  was send round to every Member of the House as in the nature of a Whip. I had a little conversation with him some days ago on the subject of this Bill, and we clearly decided that neither of us would make any effort to bring our friends on one side or the other on this question. I told him it might be necessary to issue an explanatory statement that would be addressed to every Member of the House in a form without any special demand on Members of one side or another to come forward and support this Bill. On the question of whether this is a private Bill or not, with great submission I would point out that the objects of this Bill are, firstly, to transfer the advowson of a living from one corporation to another, from the University of Oxford to Queen's College, and next to impose a charge of a certain amount of money to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor who endowed it first. I venture to submit that that is essentially the character of a private Bill, and that on that point the objection falls to the ground. This Bill is really part of a much larger scheme with which, I think, almost every Member of the House would be in sympathy really is to preserve the identity and the corporate character of a small, flourishing, and ancient society, the Society of St. Edmund Hall, which has been a place of study since the end of the thirteenth century, and which desires to retain its corporate capacity. The site of the building of St. Edmund Hall some hundreds of years ago was acquired by Queen's College, and also the right of appointing a president. The Hall is an independent body, and the principal was endowed partly out of fees and rents for rooms and so on. As has been stated in the short notice that was sent around, in the latter part of the eighteenth century Dr. Holmes gave a thousand pounds to the university to be expended by the university on the purchase of a living of not less than £200 per year, to be held in trust to give to the principal for the time being of St. Edmund Hall. The university kept the money by for some time, but eventually made a very successful purchase, because the living of Gatcombe is now worth more than £500 per year net.
  That was the position of Edmund Hall at, the time of the University Commission. It was a place to which poorer students resorted, it was flourishing and independent, with a strong sense of cor-
  1892
  porate existence. I may tell the hon. Member that it does not follow that because the names of the members of a college or hall are not on the books that they relax in any way in their loyalty and regard for the foundation from which they came. I think I could point to very distinguished Members in this House of some colleges who have not kept their names on the books. I will not go into further detail, but their loyalty to the colleges, to which they owe a great deal, is undoubted. The fact that there are between forty and fifty undergraduate members of St. Edmund Hall, and not more than sixty or seventy more on the hooks, simply means that being a body of poor men they have not thought it worth while to extend the sum which is necessarily expended on the university degree in order to keep their names on the books. The University Commission in 1877 proposed that when the present principal retires or dies St. Edmund Hall should be entirely merged in Queen's College. Queen's College was to retain the fabric and to take over the advowson of Gatcombe, and also to take over all the fees and other payments by the students of the hall, and as a return for that it was to create those exhibitions to which the hon. Member alluded, namely, twenty-four exhibitions of £25 per year each, to be held by students in the hall. Whether it is desirable that a college should have an annex of poor students ear-marked as poor students is a question I do not wish to discuss now, but that is the origin and the reason why this charge was imposed on Queen's College for those exhibitions. That now has fallen to the ground, because it seemed to the University that it should not he carried out. An amending Statute has the assent of the King in Council. The liability, therefore, depended on a certain state of things which never took place, and cannot now take place.
  St. Edmund Hall was extremely anxious as time went on to retain its independent existence, and that feeling has lasted for a good many years during which efforts have been made to come to terms so as to secure the continued independence of the hall. Under the Statute of the University Commissioners the hall remained in this state of uncertainty for a number of years. The hon. Member alluded to Dr. Moore's tenure of these separate offices in the Church, the living, the canonry, and the principalship. Dr. Moore has really retained the principalship because directly

  1893
  he resigned it the Statute of the University Commissioners would come into force and the hopes of the hall would be frustrated as to retaining their independent existence. The hon. Member has referred to a document published by Lord Curzon, but I may tell him that the arrangement which has been now come to between the college and the hall was brought about mainly through the efforts of Lord Curzon himself. He felt, as I think most people would feel, that it is net desirable to destroy the separate identity of a small and flourishing institution. Therefore the desire of the hall to retain its corporate life with its college, its hall, its chapel, its boat on the river, which is not without distinction, and all the symbols and symptoms of college and corporate life, has been carried into effect by the Statute which the King in Council gave his consent to early this year. The purport of the Statute is that the Queen's College retains the hall in fee simple and the power of appointment of principal. The position of the university as trustee of the endowment is not touched, because the Statute contemplated the passage of the Bill which is now before the House by which it will be possible, as it was not possible under such a Statute as was passed by the King in Council, to impose a charge on the living for the benefit of the religious services of the hall.
  What is the result? The hall has the advantage that the area of choice of principal is widened by the opportunity of taking a layman as an alternative to a clerical principal. At the same time, security is taken, as it was never taken before, for the maintenance of the fabric, for teaching, for discipline, and for the publication of the accounts of the hall, for the benefit of the authority which looks after the finances of the university, and of the public who may be interested in the matter. If the hall is to remain independent it ought to get some benefit from the gift of Dr. Holmes in the eighteenth century. If it is to get any benefit, I feel, in accordance with the principles which prevail, on this side of the House, that the benefits should be appropriated to the ecclesiastical services and purposes of the hall. Any member of the university in this House is probably aware that under the Act which abolished university tests, there is a statutory requirement which makes a chaplain a necessity for very college and every hall. There is no more appropriate use for Dr. Holmes's endow-
  1894
  ment than that of providing for the chapel services of the hall, and this consistently with the well-being of the living at Gatcombe. The question is can Gatcombe afford this charge of £150 a year, which it is proposed to lay upon the living? I have here the latest figures, which I may say are later than those given in "Crockford." The annual value of the living is £505 5s. 11d., with a good house and garden. The population in the last fifty years has varied from 150 to just over 200, and it is now between 160 and 170. Therefore, the population, though it fluctuates, does not show any tendency to increase. The acreage of the living is 1,300, so that there is no very great strain on the incumbent. That is a serious consideration, in calculating the value of the living, because if the incumbent has to travel large distances, he must be a man of physical endurance, or have some pecuniary means.
  Mr. KING: Has the hon. Member any facts about the glebe? "Crockford" puts the glebe at thirty acres.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think the glebe brings in a certain number of pounds a year.
  Mr. KING: In addition to the £500?
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ANSON: No; the tithe and glebe included amount to a little over £500. Therefore, the incumbent will have an income of £350 a year; Gatcombe will have what it has not had for nearly a hundred years, a resident incumbent; and St. Edmund Hall will have a chaplain provided. Under these circumstances the principal will be expected to pay back some proportion of the revenue of the hall to the tuition fund, and if the principal is a layman the chaplaincy will be held by the vice-principal, with an endowment of £150 a year. What will happen if this Bill is rejected by the House? The university holds the living in trust to present to the principal of St. Edmund Hall, if he is in orders. If, therefore, when the present principal resigns, Queen's appoints a person in orders, the old trouble of a partially resident incumbent at Gatcombe will be perpetuated. On the other hand, if Queen's appoint a layman, the university will have a nice piece of patronage, and the whole purpose of Dr. Holmes' gift will be frustrated. I submit that the case for the passing of his Bill is made out. It would be an advantage to the hall for whose benefit the endowment was

  1895
  intended, and it is not possible to impute to the Promoters of the Bill the appropriation of ecclesiastical revenue for secular purposes. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be permitted to pass.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his very lucid and temperate explanation on the provisions of this Bill. We are very pleased to hear from him that St. Edmund Hall maintains its boat on the river with honour. A few months ago the fear was expressed, I believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the example of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales would be followed in England. I hope to show that it has been followed to-night, although we did not expect it to come so soon, especially from the quarter from which it has come. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a recital of the facts from his point of view. I propose to state them as they appear from my point of view. If I err in any way I shall be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will pull me up. Here is the story from my point of view. A pious founder, of whom we heard so much a few months ago, and of whom we shall probably hear a great deal next week, left in his will a thousand pounds for the specific purpose of connecting the principal of St. Edmund Hall with the actual work of a rural parish. If he had been giving the thousand pounds merely for the maintenance of the principal, he would have said nothing about purchasing an advowson. He would have given the money to the university, and left it there as a provision for the principal. It is quite obvious that the whole purpose and intention of this pious founder in the year 1763 was permanently to join the principal of this hall with the practice of religion in the actual work of the parish. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us, this money was accumulated until 1821. What happened then? This money given by a definite will and testament of this pious founder in 1763 to the University of Oxford does not purchase a living close by Oxford, to which the principal might attend, but they go all the way to the Isle of Wight to purchase it. See what happens in the Isle of Wight?
  There is this ancient parish of Gatcombe and the old church foundation dating from the thirteenth century with the
  1896
  various arrangements associated with the parish, adequate and necessary for the people like those there—the patronage of this old living of Gatcombe with its ancient glebe was undoubtedly established by another very pious founder away back in the days before wills and testaments were drawn up. This was the case with the bulk of endowments of our own Welsh Church. That right of patronage vesting in the property attached to the Manor of Gatcombe right down to the present time, was purchased by the University of Oxford, so that this pious donor's £1,000 disposed of the earlier pious donor without any consideration whatever for the trust or its sanctity. Instead of the Manor of Gatcombe acting as manors used to—vicariously for the people upon the manor of an estate and arranging who should have the cure of souls amongst the people of that parish, there is an automatic arrangement that whoever might be selected for his learning or scholarship by the principal of St. Edmund Hall should henceforth impose himself upon the parishioners of Gatcombe and the manor because they have been bought out by this £1,000. That is the first interesting item in the story.
  The second which interests me—because the parallel is so exact and the analogy so complete—is this: that by the confession of the promoters of this Bill themselves, for it is printed in the Preamble, and a longer and more astonishing Preamble I never heard of, one of the principal reasons why they want this Bill is that the people in Gatcombe have not been served by the principal of this hall, but have been left there in charge of a curate. That does not surprise me. The thing that interests me is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends have at last put into print what we have been contending here; that is what has been the matter with us in Wales all along, that the people who have the endowments kept some very ineffective curates looking after the cure of souls of the people. That is the second feature of this very interesting Bill, the introduction of which I welcome to-night with what sincerity and joy I can possibly exhibit. We carry ourselves a stage further—to the stage proposed in this Bill. What is it? Here I repeat again that the pious founder in 1763 arranged for a patronage of a little parish in a rural district and for the disposal of an endowment which he left. That has all been torn up, because

  1897
  the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot point, I know, to a single line in the will and testament of that founder that said the Money was to be given for a chaplain of St. Edmund Hall. This testament of this pious founder was to purchase a living, and he left it to that parish, the whole of this endowment, for the ministration of the souls of that parish. What is very remarkable in the matter is this, that it is not merely the tearing up, and pillaging, and plundering of a sacred trust of which we have heard so much, and about the origin of which and the terms of which there is considerable doubt and no certainty and dispute! Mark, we in Wales have never, never come within miles of the actual wills or testaments—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Welsh Church Bill and not the Bill which is before the House. Time is short, and I would invite him to give his attention to the Bill we are discussing and to leave the other historical aspects of the case till next week.
  Mr. JONES: I shall try to avoid giving too much of that side; but I was only dealing with the stages of this Bill with a view for the guidance of the House to bringing out their particular significance. I shall try to respect your ruling and avoid going too far. The point I wish to call the attention of the House to in this Bill is that you are actually tearing up the actual instrument, because I notice that in Clause 4 it is said that this property shall
  "be vested in Queen's College for ever freed and discharged from any trust under the recited will or otherwise, but subject to the provisions of this Act."
  There never was a more flagrant example of the abuse of trusts—if it be an abuse—in the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen opposite than in this Clause 4. It is here that they say in cold, callous print that they are tearing this instrument up and disposing for ever by this Act—a, private Act—not a public Act—of all the recited terms of the will of this particular pious founder. I follow the Bill one stage further, the last stage. Not only do hon. Members through this Bill thus tear up an ancient trust and nay no regard to its actual terms and conditions, but they do not even follow the doctrine of cy près. It is followed in the other Bill. This £150 that is being forcibly taken away is not, as has already been said, to poor people with the parishioners, or poor scholars to be
  1898
  sent up by the Commissioners. It is given to the principal of the college. It is true that there is a provision here as to something about a chaplain. That is all very well. That can be provided for in other ways. The point cannot be got away from that if the principal or the vice—principal of the college is in any way in holy orders they take this £150. The right hon. Gentleman knows there was no need—no absolute need—to take £150 away from the parish. In addition, I will call attention to another feature and the manner in which this money is taken away. It is not a new arrangemnent made for allowing the people of Gatcombe to select their own incumbent for the future and to arrange this money. The incumbency is handed over to Queen's College, a body that does not appear in the will of the founder or the original testament, and, who knows? perhaps there was nothing that, the pious founder abominated more than Queen's College, because the rivalry between the colleges in Oxford was notorious. In, addition, there is this other point the manner in which it is provided that this £150 shall he disposed of. They do not make new arrangemnets and say that for the future there shall be, say, £300 a year in Gatcombe, and that there shall be £150 in Edmund's Hall. They go about it in the worst possible way and the most invidious way that could be conceived, because they leave the living at Gatcombe and its endowments as a perpetual charge upon the rector which proves, I might say, that those who a month ago were gamekeepers had now turned poachers. I ask the House to turn to Clause 6, where they will find a most remarkable arrangement between the vicar and the hall that has ever been put into an Act of Parliament, and such as certainly never was proposed and never would be proposed in any Act of Parliament by a Welsh Member. Clause 6 states that should this unfortunate rector at any time be in arrears with his payment of £150, the principal of St. Edmund Hall is to have power to put in a Receiver and to take charge of the endowment to secure his £150, and is to have the power of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and all his powers are to be like those of the mortgagee of an estate. You talk of the robbery of God! What about the mortgage of God? I just wanted to recite the terms of the Bill, because I think they speak for themselves, and I hope they will speak next week as they ought to

  1899
  speak. I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that the Noble Lord the other Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) could not have managed to be present. I could not help observing that he is in the Lobbies outside. I can suspect why he is not here to support this Bill. I can quite understand that a Member who proposes to oppose the Welsh Disestablishment Bill next week could not support this Bill. I make a present of these considerations to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope their views on ancient endowments will be as broad and liberal next week as they are here to-night.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The Chairman of Ways and Means has to listen to many speeches, but he does not make many, and I hope the House will therefore bear with me for a few minutes while saying one or two words. 8.15 is the proposed time for taking opposed private business. An hour and some minutes has been occupied by a number of hon. Members saying what an excellent Bill this is, so it would appear it ought never to have come on at the time for opposed private business.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am in opposition to it.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have risen to make a very serious appeal to hon. Members. I am the unfortunate person who is charged by this House with the supervision of the work of 110 private Bills through their various stages of this These private Bills have all to go through an elaborate series of stages. They have to comply with the Rules made by the House itself, and Rules which involve the promoters of private Bills in very serious expenses. I am bound by my office to make this appeal to hon. Members, and to every hon. Member, to recollect that we make those Rules for the promoters of those private Bills, and we ought to bear that in mind in our proceedings. And if we are to spend so much time over stages which are not apparently very contentious, it will mean interference with the general public legislation, which will have the effect of the prolongation of our proceedings which perhaps hon. Members do not realise. As long as I am charged with the care of these private Bills I will discharge my duty and I must see that they have fair opportunity of going through their various stages. I recognise, of course, that there are Bills
  1900
  that the House is justified in refusing and overruling decisions of its Committees, but the presumption of our private business is that we send Bills, as a general rule, upstairs to be examined in detail by hon. Members to whom we delegate that duty. I do ask the House, without a too long consideration of this stage of Second Reading, to allow this Bill and similar Bills to go to the appointed tribunal, the Private Bill Committees, where a class of work is done which the more I know of it the more I am proud of it. I do think we ought not to take upon ourselves here upon the floor of the House duties so competently discharged by Committees upstairs, and that appeal includes an appeal to hon. Members who have put Instructions upon the Paper that they should leave the matters proposed in these Instructions to be dealt with by the Committee to which I hope this Bill will be sent and which has more time and more opportunity of looking into the details of the Bill than are possible upon the floor of the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not at all take exception to the appeal of the Chairman of Ways and Means that criticism of this Bill at this stage should he confined to moderately concise protests from those opposed to the main principles of the Bill. But I scarcely think he should appeal to the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill like this until someone is heard who is opposed to its principle. I rose at each favourable opportunity in order that I might address a few words to the House, not at all upon the lines of Disestablishment in Wales—Members who support that very rightly welcomed this Bill, because it represents their case to the utmost limit—but as one who takes the view of the Church of England parishioner in this rural district. I want to suggest that there is no justification, if we turn our minds to the village of Gatcombe and the worshippers there, in the Church of England, for a rank measure of spoliation of this description, which must be really painful to anyone in this House concerned in the rural parishes with the Church of England. My objection is this: I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman proved to the House that an income of £505 for a parish consisting of 160 people, of whom I dare say a considerable proportion are Nonconformists—and my information is that there are a considerable body of Nonconformists in this parish—is a large sum. But I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and to every

  1901
  Churchman in this House, whether merely to make a case for the Disestablishment Bill next week we ought to pass a measure of this description. Surely the money should be devoted to other parishes. I ask the House whether it is fair to consider St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. It may be in need of money, and may be an excellent institution. I am not challenging that; but surely we have men on the other side of the House who could take care of St. Edmund Hall.
  There are many parishes of the Church of England where the emoluments and the remuneration of the country vicars are modest beyond degree, and they cannot maintain their wives and children in consequence, and give them an education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University knows very well that throughout the country there are clergymen in the Church of England working for a mere pittance, and the proper thing to have done was not to take this money from the parish of Gatcombe and take it away to Oxford, but it should have been taken for some of the poor parishes in the Church of England. To forget these poor curates in this way, and for the right hon. Gentleman to take this money for the university he represents, does not at all meet the justice of the case. The right hon. Gentleman apparently wants to get hold of a little for his constituents, so that he can go back and say, "Look what I have got for you." I appeal to the House and to the promotors of all such Bills as this that they should remember the poverty-stricken parishes where the clergy are struggling under very adverse circumstances. I am surprised that the Member for the Isle of Wight is not present to prevent, a parish in his constituency from being robbed by such a Bill as this. The hon. Member for Somerset turned the discussion upon the university foundation, but the people who should be considered are the parishoners in this small parish of Gatcombe. If there is any Division against this Bill, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it, in the interests of the poor clergymen of the Church of England, whose interests do not seem to have any concern for hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: In view of the statements which have been made by hon. Members opposite, I should be sorry if those outside imagine for a moment that those statements are an accurate representation of the Bill before the House. I
  1902
  have no interest whatever in this Bill, and I do not wish to intervene in the domestic differences between the hon. Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Somerset. The statement which has been made and which is absolutely incorrect is that this Bill proposes to devote money which is at present devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, or to what has been called the services of God, to secular purposes. That is absolutely inaccurate.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have read the Bill and I will recite what it does in a moment. There is all the difference in the world between devoting money used for ecclesiastical purposes of any kind, whether Church of England or Nonconformist denominations, to purely secular purposes, such as libraries or public bodies, and devoting the money, as this Bill does, from one ecclesiastical purpose to another ecclesiastical purpose. There is a great difference between the two. The proposal of the Bill may be good or it may be bad, but it proposes that in future the two duties should be separated and the sum of £150 is to be taken from the parish of Gatcombe and applied to the salary of the chaplain, who must be a member of the Church of England, at St. Edmund Hall in the University of Oxford. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am going to quote the words of the Statute. The £150 has to be paid to the principal of St. Edmund Hall if he is a priest of the Church of England, and he will have to do the duty of chaplain. He must be in orders in the Church of England. I am not arguing whether that is wise or not.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is not correct.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That is the point which I wish to make absolutely clear. The Bill provides that £150
  "should be paid by the Principal to the Vice-Principal of the Hall, and that if the Principal should be a Priest in Holy Orders he should, after the passing of such Act, receive the annual sum of £150, being the amount of such charge for his own use and benefit, that the Principal should exercise the offices of Dean and Tutor in the Hall and take part in the instruction of its members, and if in Priest's Orders should act as Chaplain for the performance of Divine Service in the Chapel of the Hall."

  1903
  Clause 16 further provides:—
  "That he should from time to time appoint a Vice-Principal of the Hall, such Vice-Principal to be a Priest in Holy Orders if the Principal were not a Priest in Holy Orders, and in that case to act as Chaplain for the performance of Divine Service in the Chapel of the Hall."
  so that the £150 is bound to be devoted to a person in holy orders, and who has to do the duty of performing Divine Service in the chapel of the hall.
  Mr. BOOTH: Where does it say that?
  Sir W. ANSON: If I might be allowed to offer an explanation I would like to point out that the application of this £150 is governed by a University Statute, and the money can only be used for the purpose I have described.
  Mr. BOOTH: When that operates there must be a chaplain, therefore it will leave another £150 to be devoted to secular purposes.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The £150 goes to the person who is the chaplain.
  Mr. BOOTH: And it leaves £150 for secular purposes.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That certainly is not so. This £150 is taken by the Bill and it goes to the person who is the chaplain. That is the only effect of this measure, and the money goes to the person who does duty as chaplain. It is possible that you may set a certain sum of money free elsewhere, but the money has to go for an ecclesiastical purpose and to an ecclesiastical body, and if the person it goes to is not in holy orders does not receive it. Therefore it is not a case of devoting a sum of money from ecclesiastical purposes to secular purposes, and it was for that reason that I got up to contradict what is absolutely a wrong impression.
  Mr. DENMAN: I have in mind the remarks which have just been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and therefore I will not attempt to follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who spoke last except to say that on this side of the House we do not agree with him. The only point I wish to make is that there is a serious question of principle involved in this Bill, and unless we refer to it now the Committee might not pay
  1904
  that attention to it which ought to be paid to the matter, and the Bill might suffer in consequence on the Third Reading. The House should really recollect the facts. We are here overriding the wishes of pious benefactors, and are starting out afresh to say what shall be done. I want particularly to express the hope that the Committee will seriously consider whether the allocation as set out in the Bill is really the best allocation in the interests of religion and learning. If they are satisfied on that point, we, of course, will naturally follow them, but I have no reason to suppose that the agreement between Queen's College and St. Edmund Hall is necessarily the best possible agreement, and I trust the Committee will consider that point.
  Mr. MORRELL: I rise as a warm supporter of this Bill. I believe that it is a necessary and practical Bill, but I must say that I listened with surprise to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), and with some surprise to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Anson). They are prepared to take, as the House is prepared to take part of the, endowment of a living and devote it mainly to educational purposes, and all we ask is that they should have the courage of their convictions and say so. As to the taking of the endowment, that is perfectly plain. It is expressed quite clearly in the Preamble of the Bill.
  "And whereas the celebration of Divine Service and the other parochial duties relating to the Cure of Souls within the said Rectory have for many years past been performed by a Curate in charge of the said Rectory and under the provisions of the last recited Statute it will be impossible for the Principal of the Hall to perform such duties in person:"
  You would have thought that all further claim upon the endowment of the living would have been resigned. Not at all. They take from the living £150 a year, which was intended by the founders of the living to be devoted to the cure of souls, and it is obviously intended by those who framed this Bill, that it should benefit St. Edmund Hall. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University said quite clearly, every college and every hall in the university is bound at present to appoint a chaplain

  1905
  who must be an ordained member of the Church of England, and even if this Bill did not pass, St. Edmund Hall would still be bound to provide its own chaplain. If this Bill passes it is a very convenient way of providing the salary which the chaplain requires. I think that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing to set free £150 a year which Edmund Hall would otherwise have to provide for the chaplain in order to use it in this way; but, at any rate, let Oxford University and the right hon. Gentleman who represents it have the courage to say so. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not possible to impute an appropriation of ecclesiastical property. What else is this House asked to do to-night but to legalise the appropriation of ecclesiastical property? I am not surprise the Noble Lord who also represents Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) is not in his place.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
    Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That, a sum, not exceeding £189,988, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."
    Which Amendment was to reduce Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) by £100.
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. KING: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. You informed us just now that you desired that the Instructions on the Bill should be sent upstairs. Will they be sent upstairs? Why were they not put?
    The CHAIRMAN: The House has now gone into Committee of Supply.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I was drawing attention, when the discussion was interrupted, to the expenditure of money within workhouse grounds to accommodate children. There is the case of a Surrey board of guardians, the Hambledon Board of Guardians, who propose to expend £1,885 in housing twenty-four children within the workhouse precincts. A couple of cottage houses, each accommodating twelve children, could probably be built for the same sum, and the children would be removed from direct workhouse influences. I wish to pass on to the question of the Boarding-out Order. I think that we may congratulate ourselves that the new Boarding-out Order is working well. The number of children boarded out has now, to use a common phrase, got into the same street with the number of children in the workhouse. There are over 10,000 children boarded-out, and 13,000 children in the workhouse. It will be a great pleasure to me when the boarded-out figure passes the other. I regard to the two sections of boarded-out children, those boarded out within the union, and those without the union, I should like to emphasise the value of the boarding-out beyond the union. I have no desire whatever that the President of the Local Government Board should decrease the number boarded out within the union, but I do desire that he should take every means of increasing those children who are boarded out beyond the union, and in connection with the boarding out beyond the union I would specially emphasise the value of the influence of the voluntary committees of women of leisure and capacity who take an interest in the children and assist them in their after career, dissociating them from all connection with the Poor Law. This is specially valuable in the case of very unfortunate children brought up in surroundings which have the most degrading influence upon them. The only redemption for those children is frequently to remove them and to let them be taken miles away, so that their undesirable relatives and acquaintances may have no influence on them. It is most valuable in the case of that class of children that they should come into the hands of the voluntary committee outside. I should like it be remembered that Poor Law boarding out in this country received its first official recognition through the efforts of voluntary women workers. They obtained step by step the existing official

    1907
    recognition of the system. It is probable that there is now only one survival, Miss Davenport of the original deputation of women, the very first which ever waited on a Government Department, and which in 1870 secured Mr. Goschen's promise to issue an Order regulating the boarding out of Poor Law children beyond the union to which they were chargeable. It must be a pleasure to her to see now that there are 10,000 children who, under other circumstances, would be within the workhouses, but who are now boarded out.
    In regard to this matter I should like to press on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of having an adequate number of women inspectors devoted entirely to children, although not entirely perhaps to boarded-out children. There are at the present time two ladies attending to this work who give very good service. Other ladies who also take part in the work are, I believe, required to inspect workhouses, infirmaries, schools, and other places where the conditions and requirements are quite different from those which would be admirable in a boarded-out child's home. I would press him to consider the work of these women inspectors, who are I believe, in certain circumstances even more useful than most inspectors in finding out some of the weak places in our workhouses. Boarding out requires a thoroughly specialised inspection, and if there is divided attention the woman inspector cannot adequately perform her work. What is required is an increased staff of women inspectors, that they should be in smaller districts, and that the woman inspector of each district shall inspect all the Poor Law children within her area. Let her attention be entirely directed to the best method of dealing with the children in that area. There are boarded out children, there are institutional children, and there is that most miserable class of all, the class of out-relief children. In regard to them I think it is a wise step to encourage Voluntary Care Committees. Out-relief children are under the worst conditions of privation and neglect. They are in the very least satisfactory section of Poor Law work, and they would more repay the attention of the Department than any other section of Poor Law work.
    You have one especial class, the class of widows and neglected wives, with their children. I am very much afraid that they are relieved insufficiently. They require
    1908
    to be looked upon in a way entirely different from any other section of Poor Law work. Take the case of the mother of five or six children, a widow or deserted wife. It is not infrequent to find a board of guardians encouraging, I might almost say, insisting, on such a mother going out to work. If her children are young, she has to pay someone to look after them while she is at work. She might have to pay a woman 9s. a week in order that she may go out to earn 13s, or 14s. It would be money well spent to give that mother 3s. or 4s. extra, and let her stay at home and look after the children. I hope that this portion of the work of the guardians will receive greater attention from the right hon. Gentleman. As time is somewhat short, I will not further enlarge upon the matter, but I sincerely ask him to give it his attention.
    Sir MARK SYKES: I venture to revert to a question raised earlier in the afternoon, to which I wish to draw the special attention of the President of the Local Government Board, and that is the question of the water supply in rural districts. Replying to an hon. Member recently the Under-Secretary endeavoured to give us who are interested in the health of rural districts some comfort by saying that certain schemes were in process of gestation, and that valuable information would be forthcoming. But I submit we want something practical to be done in the course of next year. It would be out of order to refer to legislation, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the work of his Department, he might bring more pressure to bear on the local authorities in order to get practical schemes carried through, because it must be admitted that typhoid fever is a scourge, danger and pest to rural districts. For certain specific reasons it is particularly a danger; many people grow immune from typhoid in infancy; secondly, it lies dormant in certain districts; and, thirdly, to grapple with typhoid by providing a sound water supply inflicts great expense upon certain bodies which are ill able to bear it. For that reason people will to a certain extent grow careless. It is very difficult indeed to work up interest or feeling on such a question as the danger of typhoid until an actual calamity comes upon a district. This is not a case, however, in which the Local Government Board should wait for a calamity. Its duty should be to take time by the forelock and bring pressure now to bear

    1909
    on the local authorities, by every means it can, in order to avoid those dangers and calamities which overtake with crushing force certain small rural districts.
    The right hon. Gentleman's usual answer, which is to give the names of districts which show that typhoid is on the decrease, is not sufficient. I submit that typhoid ought to be as dead in England as is typhus fever. That has been exterminated, and there is no reason why typhoid should not be exterminated also. I have seen in South Africa places where a typhoid epidemic prevails, and other places alongside them where troops are under identically the same conditions, and yet 17 per cent. have been attacked in the one place, and in the other, where they have proper supplies, there have only been 1 per cent. attacked. I have seen in South Africa how you can grapple with such an epidemic as that, and, although I happen to be chairman of the Health and Housing Committee of the East Riding County Council, I say we are absolutely helpless in the division, and far less able to grapple with the disease than was the case in South Africa. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a case in East Riding. In Howdenshire there are many towns. In 1875 the Local Government Board stated that the time had come for something to be done and that they had been collecting valuable information and getting good advice. In 1895 it was decided by the county council that the time had come when really something must be done, and in 1910 something was done, because there was a drought, and people had to be provided with drinking water in foot-warmers obtained from the railways. That shows the extraordinary speed with which the Local Government Board has worked in the past. I submit the time has come when it should bring pressure, to bear on the local bodies. They can help the county councils to get their schemes carried through. As it is, every year lives are being uselessly sacrificed, and it is a scandal to this country that people should be dying of a disease that they need never have caught, and which, if proper sanitary arrangements were made, they would never catch. This tax upon blood and life is falling upon the agricultural population, which itself is very healthy and very prolific, and which is really the fountain head of the English race. Every year a number of these useful people are subject to die, and of those who do not die any medical man will say that
    1910
    their lives are not so good after they have had typhoid fever. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman from the Imperial point of view, the humanitarian point of view, and the common-sense point of view in the ensuing year to try to "ginger up" that part of his Department which deals with these questions, and to grapple with a problem which it is not too strong a thing to say—it affects both parties equally—through the long record of the Local Government Beard has suffered from criminal neglect.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down probably heard the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, in which my right hon. Friend gave an outline of what the Department is doing with regard to the general water supplies, and particularly water supplies relating to small townships and outlying villages. I have very little to add to that except this: We felt so strongly the representations which were made by the hon. Member himself a year ago and by my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) some two years ago, that to give expression to the Board's view of one aspect of rural water supplies we prepared a Bill, which we presented last year, which is on the Paper this year, and if the hon. Member will persist in his worthy endeavours to abate the opposition upon his own side of the House, and if my hon. Friend behind me will help him to do it—I have done all I can to remove the objections of only two or three Members on both sides of the House—there is no reason why the immediately critical aspect of rural water supplies should not be immediately solved if that Bill is passed into law. I can only say that I will do anything I can do to help rural water supplies, and, at the same time, to safeguard them from being unnecessarily raided by large companies or by large towns. I believe it is possible to secure good water supplies for the rural areas, and at the same time supply the large towns and cities. Through lack of a general survey of our water supply, both above and underground, the waste of water that now goes on, if it were diverted to better rural and town supplies, would be more than sufficient to adequately supply both rural and urban areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to get that Bill passed this year.
    10.0 P.M.
    The Committee has been, if I may so, unusually kind to myself and to the Department in the discussion we have had

    1911
    upon the Local Government Board Vote. I do not propose to deal with every one of the points, because time would not permit of that, but I propose to deal with the most salient points raised by hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee. I will commence with what was said about Poor Law children. Hon. Friends of mine on this side of the Committee who have taken a special interest in this subject know that a great deal has been done in the last three or four years to secure the exodus of Poor Law children from all workhouses and institutional treatment where that institutional treatment is not, so good as can be secured in cottage, scattered or other homes, and by circulars, by Orders, by visits of inspectors, by encouraging voluntary committees of ladies and in many other ways, I am glad to say that the disappearance of children between the ages of three and sixteen from the workhouses is being rapidly accomplished. That is demonstrated by this fact: Since June, 1910, when the first circular was issued, I find that one hundred boards of guardians have provided separate accommodation for Poor Law children away from the workhouses, and thirty-six boards of guardians did this last year. That is an indication of the rapidity with which this movement is being carried out. I am glad to say that at this moment there are not more than 8,000 children in or about workhouse premises, and these 8,000 have been still further reduced, because nearly one-half, or 3,500, are in separate buildings for children apart from the main buildings, which leaves us with only 4,600 children in other wards of the workhouses, but with separate day rooms and dormitories, and they are only in the workhouses for temporary purposes where wards are being used as receiving wards while the children are being looked to as a preliminary to being transferred to cottage or scattered homes. I can best illustrate the rapidity with which this is being done by taking the case of London. In 1912 there were only 221 children between the ages of three and sixteen in the workhouses. In 1913 there are only 165, and of these 165, seventy-four were in separate buildings, and the remainder only in workhouses temporarily, being on there way to other places.
    I can only say that these figures demonstrate facts, and are an earnest of the promise I gave to the House that I would
    1912
    accelerate the disappearance of children altogether from all our workhouses. The Departmental Committee that is considering a number of other Poor Law questions at this moment is going to deal specially with this, so that we can still further accelerate the final removal of all children from workhouses and similar institutions. Another point with regard to the Poor Law was raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Thomas Richardson), who said he would like to see the day when the words "destitute" and "destitution" were eliminated from our Poor Law terminology. If the hon. Member will look at the dictionary he will find that the word "destitute" is defined as "necessitous," and if he will look up the word "necessitous" he will find, in other dictionaries, that it is defined as "destitute." The fact is, that whether it is "destitution" or "necessitous," the interpretation of it from the humanitarian point of view, depends upon the spirit as well as the letter with which "necessitous" and "destitute" is applied, both by guardians and relieving officers. I care less for the words than I do for what hon. Members very sincerely desire, namely, that in the relief of every necessitous or destitute person the greatest consideration and the utmost kindness should be shown to people who are in one or other of those two conditions.
    The other point raised in connection with the Poor Law was that raised by the hon. Member (Mr. T. Richardson). He very properly referred to the very sad and almost tragic fact that in this country, which notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, is by far the richest country in the world, we should have ninety-eight people die of starvation, and that in London, the richest city in the world, forty people should have been declared at coroners' inquests to have died through lack of food. That is a condition of things which all of us ought to take every step within our power to remove, and if we could anticipate this sad condition of even forty people, we ought to leave no stone unturned by means of which this thing can be obviated and prevented altogether. But I would ask hon. Members to realise that out of these forty cases only two or three applied for Poor Law relief to the guardians, and they were brought by the kindly police for the first time either to the workhouse or the infirmary, and when they got there they were treated, as they ought to be treated,

    1913
    with the utmost mercy and consideration. This type of unfortunate person is not only destitute apparently of means, but is also very frequently destitute of his proper faculties. That is demonstrated by the fact that out of forty people in 1911, in whose case a verdict of death by starvation was given, three had at the moment of their death, in the workhouse or at the police station, sums of over £100 in their possession, whilst a not inconsiderable number had sums varying from a sovereign to £8 or £10. It is very difficult to devise a means by which you can prevent a person with £100 in his possession, who is determined not to spend any of that money on food, from dying of starvation or having death accelerated by lack of proper food, but it is our duty to devise means by which the police shall be able to render first aid and the relieving officers shall do everything in their power, to prevent this condition of things, and I can assure the House that that is being done with the co-operation of the police and the guardians.
    The hon. Member raised another point, which was that children under the Poor Law should be taught rural craftsmanship more than they now are. I do not know whether he has given much attention to the education and training of Poor Law children generally, but so far as the education of Poor Law children is concerned in towns and cities, there really is very little to be done in the way of improving either the care, clothing, the accommodation, the education, or the training of these children. It is very difficult to suggest a means by which Poor Law children can have their condition improved so far as money and care and accommodation and clothing are concerned, but in regard to rural craftsmanship all the rural boards of guardians fortunately are in possession of large gardens, many of them of a considerable amount of land, and it is the business as it is the duty of the inspectors to see that in rural areas, wherever there is an opportunity for agricultural education, these lads are equipped with those qualities which would enable them, either in this country or in one of the Colonies, to take to rural craftsmanship and agricultural labour in preference to other town industries for which, both in body and mind, the lads are not so well equipped.
    Another point raised was the scale of out-relief for children. On that matter great progress has been made. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), when
    1914
    he was President of the Local Government Board, and his successor—and in continuity of that policy I followed their footsteps—always insisted particularly that children who were living either with deserted or widowed mothers should have an adequate amount of out-relief, and I am very glad to say, as figures prove, that the out-relief given to widows and their children has risen considerably in recent years, and when it is remembered that 40 per cent. of our total pauperism is due either to widowhood, desertion, or orphanhood, it shows what a large claim the widowed and the deserted mother and the deserted children and the orphans have upon both public rates and taxes. My view is that it is a mistake to deny to widows with growing children, especially where the family is large in number, an opportunity of rearing her children under good conditions as to food and shelter, subject, of course, to that not being abused, and people for whom out-relief is not intended taking advantage of the public generosity which, given to the widow and the children, is sometimes diverted to the wrong people.
    That takes me from the Poor Law to the question of the provision of sanatoria in London and elsewhere. I do not intend to deal other than with the facts in dispute in this particular matter. The hon. Member (Mr. Astor) has detracted considerably from the sympathetic position that he was gradually assuming in this House both by the matter and the tone of his observations. He has made up in rudeness what he lacked in argument, and I should be giving undue prominence to an undignified performance if I were to take any notice at all of his personalities. I have only one reflection to make. As the speech was being made I thought of a quotation from Francis Bacon, which public men of the present time always ought to have in their mind—
    "The more noble a soul is, the greater it compassion hath."
    That is how I felt towards the hon. Member. But he did answer much that he said by certain portions of his own speech. He said the condition of sanatoria in London and elsewhere was chaotic, and that insured persons did not get the sort of treatment they are paying for, and he said that his charge against the Local Government Board was that they had given no strong had to local authorities, but he did admit that the Local Government Board had to contend

    1915
    with enormous difficulties in the duties that they had to undertake. That is perfectly true, and if the hon. Member had remembered that, the rest of his speech need not have been made. I can only say that the Department and the staff, who have had sanatoria, under their jurisdiction have attended to this matter with signal success. The hon. Gentleman himself did not produce to this House a case in which people entitled to sanatoria accommodation were without it. He said he could, but he did not. The Order was issued as a matter of fact only ten days after the date when it should have been issued. That was due to no fault of the Local Government Board, but because of the fact that, at the last moment necessary negotiations had to be undertaken between the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners, and the committees. Months before 26th July, and during the time the hon. Member's own committee was sitting, the Local Government Board, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and all the other authorities, had made arrangements in anticipation for sanatoria being provided as from 15th July onwards. They had really done a great, deal of devoted and able work in trying to provide sanatoria. I can only say that, so far as the Local Government Board are concerned, these figures, which are facts, are an answer to much of the idle criticism and factious talk with reference to sanatoria of which we have heard too It is no small thing to have provided since July last 208 sanatoria with 7,500 beds. It is no small achievement to have secured 192 dispensaries, which, like the sanatoria, are attending to many thousands of people. It is no small achievement that the local authorities, which in this matter I wish to defend, should in forty-nine councils out of sixty-two, in sixty-six county boroughs out of seventy-five, and in twenty-five Metropolitan councils, have submitted and got into working provisional schemes for tuberculosis, sanatoria, and dispensaries, and that, generally speaking, at this moment there is a margin of beds for those who require them. When the hon. Member twits the Local Government Board with dilatoriness and with doing this, that, and the other, all I can say is that the Board have got ample justification for everything they have done. They have only to quote paragraphs 24
    1916
    and 34 of the hon. Member's own Report to plead, not an excuse, but an ample defence for all that has been done. Paragraph 24 says;—
    "As regards London, it seems desirable to the Committee that it should be considered whether some of the sanatoria hospitals required should not be provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and whether dispensaries should not be provided by the Metropolitan borough councils."
    In the light of that report, instead of wasting my time and that of my officers in needless circulars, letters, and reports, I knew, what every Londoner knew, that on 15th July there were in London anything from 800 to 1,500 empty beds in the possession of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, one of the best infectious hospital authorities in the world, to which men from France, America, and Canada have come to gather experience and knowledge of how to organise the protection of the people from infectious diseases. It would have been the grossest folly and the greatest extravagance with the ratepayers' money for me, with that knowledge which I had, to have thrown upon the rates and taxes the provision of surplus beds and surplus sanatoria, when all these beds were vacant and the institutions were almost derelict for lack of patients. The result was that long before the hon. Member's report or the other was issued I went to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The county was agreeable, the Local Government Board assented, and I am glad to say that at Downe and Winchmore Hill Sanatoria hundreds of men and women are receiving the best sanatorium treatment which it is possible to give them. I have been with my officers to see them. I have not received one single complaint about the method of treatment, and I am delighted to say that tuberculous insured persons in the London sanatoria, thanks to the public spirit of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who did early what the London County Council should probably have done earlier, have been provided with sanatorium treatment of which not a single complaint has been made, and to which no criticism can be wisely or fairly directed. If hon. Members doubt me, let them go and see for themselves. I should be delighted to accompany some of them, and I am certain that their inspection will bear out what I say.
    The next point is with regard to vaccination officers. Of these, 100 only are all-imers—that is, devote all their time to vaccination work. Of the 1,300 who

    1917
    remain, 930 give all their time to the guardians, either as vaccination officers, registrars, or relieving officers, and of these 365 hold private and other outside appointments, such as clerks, collectors, attendance officers, and so on. Out of the 1,400, grievances have been alleged only in connection with 658. Out of that 658 over whom there has been correspondence between the Local Government Board and the boards of guardians, the employers of the vaccination officers, 594 have received gratuities, increased fees, salaries, postages, and other forms of compensation, so that the alleged grievance is diminished considerably by the fact that out of 658, some 594 have received gratuities in the shape of fees, postage, and so forth.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any single case in the 594 where the gratuities or rewards are sufficient to make up the amount of the salaries they received, between the years 1903 and 1907 or are they not still out of pocket?
    Mr. BURNS: In the cases where other forms of employment have not been found, in the opinion of the guardians, who are qualified to know, the diminished compensation fairly meets the case. As to the remaining cases, I am still in correspondence with the guardians, and in so far as it is possible for me to persuade the guardians to diminish any hardships that may arise with regard to the difference between 658 and 594, the House can rely on my doing it. Of the one hundred all-timers who devote their time to vaccination, ninety were in office before the Act of 1907. A correspondence has ensued in regard to seventy, and sixty-eight have received compensation. One receives more than he did at the period mentioned by the hon. Member, who has just intervened, and in the only other case out of the seventy, the guardians for the moment still decline to give the compensation demanded. It is not fair to compare the diminished work of these vaccination officers with what had to be done in the boom period, or the epidemic period between 1903 and 1907. We believe that it is wiser, instead of issuing a General Order to give increased remuneration to all the vaccination officers whether they deserve it or not, to take each individual case on its merits, and give compensation adequate to the grievance of the particular officers. For that
    1918
    particular course I am glad to say that we have the support of the Poor Law Officers' Association and the approval of those who know most about this particular question. The next and most important question is that raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long). The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I pass over his purely personal and Departmental criticisms on myself and some of my officers. I can only say that he was entirely wrong when he suggested that if I were to have less of my own way at the Local Government Board and allow my officers to have more of theirs, it would give satisfaction to a wider public than the present system now does. My answer to that is that we are not built that way. But what is more the right hon. Gentleman is the very first man I have known during the time I have been President of the Local Government Board who takes that view. It has been generally the other way that we allow our officers to manufacture the shots and we simply fire them. That is not so. By a judicious combination of business principles and by them having their way when they are right, and by the President having his way under similar conditions the result is that we go through six or seven hours of Parliamentary criticism of a great Department, and I put it to the House fairly has there been except on small points any serious criticism. [An HON. MEMBER "Housing."] I will come to that. I refer to points with regard to Poor Law and public health administration, and nothing illuminates the truth of what I now say more than the fact that you had to have four or five speeches on small points of vaccination officers' remuneration occupying the time of the Imperial Parliament through lack of matter and of serious grounds for serious criticism of the Local Government Board.
    The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long) opened by saying that one of the chief questions before the House was the question of whether the Central authority should be or not in favour of subventions or doles for housing, and, though he did not say it, he implied, I believe, other aspects of public health, with which housing is intimately connected. My short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this, that when he was President of the Local Government Board, and he worthily filled that office for many years, he never suggested to the House of Commons subventions either to local authorities or to

    1919
    rural landlords, or to urban authorities in the way of subsidies or doles for either urban housing, for slum clearances, or for the provision of cottages in rural areas. He will pardon me if I refuse to believe otherwise than that he did not do this because he thought that, speaking generally, the local authorities, in the absence of private enterprise, given that they had the power conferred upon them, which in the main they now have, of providing houses in default of private enterprise do that; and that they have the power of building, and securing public money by acquiring loans, and building houses and cottages at the cost of erection, maintenance and repair at economic rents without subsidy, and without subvention or dole.
    Mr. LONG: I should not intervene were it not that the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to express what he believes to be the reason which led to the policy which I adopted as President of the Local Government Board. He has quite inaccurately described the causes that led to my action at that time. I thought I had explained before to-night that I hold, and I think I established in the House this afternoon, that since I left the Local Government Board there has been a complete change in the conditions of rural life. As I said the other day, having followed this problem very closely, I have within the last year become convinced you will never solve it unless by State aid.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to explain and qualify his previous opposition to or lack of sympathy with subventions, subsidies, and doles—
    Mr. LONG: When did I oppose anything of the kind?
    Mr. BURNS: My answer is that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was President of the Local Government Board, never favoured either subsidies or doles.
    Mr. LONG: Nobody ever proposed them.
    Mr. BURNS: That is just my point. And if nobody proposed them, especially seeing the responsible position the right hon. Gentleman occupied, I cannot be judged too severely if I look rather closely at suggestions for the taxation of the towns for the benefit of the country; for providing certain privileged people and
    1920
    tenants with doles, often from poorer people; sometimes for the relief of rural landowners, landlords, farmers, and local authorities from their proper obligations to house their people by means of public loans—
    Mr. LONG: Who proposes that?
    Mr. BURNS: I am entitled to look closely at every proposal that seeks to secure subventions, doles, and subsidies, for housing which has hitherto been left to local authorities and private enterprise without any State assistance at all. Particularly am I entitled to say that, because the right hon. Gentleman said that, whilst being in favour of some form of subsidy or subvention he was strongly opposed to a minimum wage in rural areas, on the ground that it would do enormous harm to the working class. If it is uneconomic, dangerous, and perhaps immoral to raise wages by law—I only put out the suggestion, I give no final word upon it—the same objection might equally be taken to subventions to landowners and farmers which might have the effect of preventing existing wages from being increased, and of stereotyping an inferior and lowly condition of life. My own view is this. I have heard with pleasure of Cambridgeshire agricultural labourers receiving increases of wages of from 1s. to 2s. a week during the past few months. I have heard with greater pleasure of the Lancashire agricultural labourers demanding a six days week, Saturday afternoons, the minimum of Sunday labour, and an increase of from 3s. to 4s. a week on their present wages. If you really want to help the agricultural labourer, it is much better, either by trade union effort or, as the last resort, by a minimum wage by law, to raise his wages by 3s. or 4s. a week, so that he can command an independent cottage of his own, not tied either to the farm or the land which he tills, than that you should waste the time of Parliament and of the agricultural labourer by talking about a system of subsidies and doles that will never amount to more than 4d. or 5d. per week per cottage. By concentrating your 4d. or 5d. per week per cottage by a dole or subsidy, you are taking the best steps to prevent the agricultural labourer from getting a reduction of hours, a six days week, and the 3s. or 4s. added to the wage that his miserable low-paid condition demands.
    Mr. LONG: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest—I only wish it

    1921
    made perfectly clear—that the proper remedy is to increase the labourers' wages by 3s. or 4s. per week, and increase their rent by the same amount? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. BURNS: That question answers itself. If a rise in wages of 3s. or 4s. per week by trade union effort or otherwise is going to raise the rent of the cottage of the labourer, the same thing will happen if the landlords and farmers get a dole of 4d. or 6d. per week per cottage: the rent will be raised to the men to the same extent. Therefore, that argument applies both ways. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of a few good landlords. I do not believe that all landlords are tyrants, or all farmers are fools. Certainly I do not believe that all labourers are going to be too often the subjected creatures that they have been under the low wages that they have received too long. It is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman, who himself has been generous in this respect, to cite the special case of a few landlords, and give their conduct general application. He knows very well that there are thousands, certainly hundreds, of landlords who do not live up to the standard of the best in providing their labourers with good cottages. That is my chief criticism against a dole or subsidy given indiscriminately to the individual. [HON. MEMBER: "No, the local authorities."] I must put my case. My criticism against doles is that if you give them from the State or from the rates the landlords who have not done their duty get them, and you are penalising the good landlords who without a subsidy have done their duty and will continue to do so. The other point raised was: Is it fair that roadmenders, postmen and policemen should live in cottages that we intended for agricultural labourers? My answer to that is that the Government Departments and the local authorities, who employ these men have the power of making this provision; and I am glad to say that they are increasingly doing it. The right Gentleman mocked the power of mandamus. I can only say that the power of mandamus is more valuable than he thinks, because to hold a mandamus over the head of a local 'authority has the result of compelling them to act. I listened in vain to the right hon. Gentleman for any alternative suggestion as to what he would do if he had the power to provide cottages in rural areas. Is he going to
    1922
    supersede the local authorities now charged with that particular duty? If so, it would take a long time to set up the machinery necessary to supersede those authorities. Is he going to take the place of private enterprise, that builds 97 per cent. of the cottages, both rural and urban? If so, it would take a long time indeed. I prefer to use our existing powers to screw up the local authorities to do their duty, and I am glad to say they are increasingly responding, as I shall be able to show by a Return that we are preparing and which will shortly be before the public. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley made great use, and that is typical of the hon. and gallant Member's method of dealing with this, of a letter he had received from a North-country parson. He said this North-country parson had written a letter to the Local Government Board from Felton with regard to housing, and he wanted to know what had come of it, and said nothing had come of it; and immediately that an hon. Member on the Labour Benches who comes from the district contradicted the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and said that the small urban council of Felton was building rural houses at a cost of £29,000, then the hon. and gallant Member wanted to know what was done at Sudley Bay. Well, the same as at Felton. There 113 cottages are being built at a cost of £30,000 under a scheme put forward by the local authority, and that scheme, adequate to meet the grievances of the locality, has been sanctioned and passed by the Local Government Board. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what about London? London at this moment has only got one large housing scheme, namely, that at Tabard Street. No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member that the difficulty of London is less the provision of houses for the working classes than the low wages of many of the working classes, which does not afford them the means of paying the rent for empty houses existing in London to the tune of 50,000 or 60,000, and the only occasion on which I had to co-operate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to housing was to let off the London County Council because there were so many empty houses in the vicinity of Tabard Street and other streets, and it is hardly fair for the hon. Member to taunt me with doing nothing for housing in London in these circumstances.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misre-

    1923
    presented me. He knows perfectly well that in the particular case he has mentioned the only reason we asked not to rehouse the people in the Tabard Street area was that better provision could be made for them in the suburbs of London.
    Mr. BURNS: If the housing problem is so acute as it is represented on the platform, then the provision of cottages at Tooting and Tottenham is not adequate for dock labourers and stevedores living in the neighbourhood of the Borough and Southwark. The fact is, if the wages of the unskilled and casual labourers, as well as the agricultural labourers were adequate to meet their housing and other social needs, nine-tenths of the housing problem would be solved. Why do I say that? Does the hon. Member know that notwithstanding the dearth of housing accommodation in rural areas generally, there are, according to the Census figures of last year 108,000 empty houses in exclusively rural areas in England and Wales. According to the same figures there are 10,000 cottages being built in rural areas, and all over England and Wales at this moment, there are 440,000 uninhabited houses in town and country, and if the unskilled and casual workers could command higher wages, many of those empty houses would be occupied and much of the housing problem would be solved. Many remedies have been suggested by which this difficulty can be met. I have exhausted a great deal of time and attention in speeding up and accelerating housing, both in rural and urban areas, and I have only got one answer, "nothing is being done." Let me quote the figures. In two years ending March, 1912, under the new Act, 66,000 houses have been made fit for immediate occupation, and nearly as many more have been made fit under the Public Health Act of 1891 through the local authorities being screwed up in recent years by the Local Government Board to do this work. No less than 72,000 representations of unfit houses have been made in the same period, and in the last three years £800,000 in loans have been sanctioned to rural and urban authorities by the Public Works Loans Commissioners for housing in recent years. When hon. Members say that nothing is being done with regard to housing, I say that in 1912 there were in existence 180,000 more houses of £15 annual value and under than there were in 1909.
    1924
    I ask the House to listen to a comparison between what happened before local authorities had the power which they did not have until 1910. What has happened in the last two years? In 1910, through lack of means and power, rural authorities only spent £520 on rural housing; in the last two and a half years I have sanctioned for rural housing three times more loans than were sanctioned by my predecessors in the previous twenty-two years. That fact alone answers a great deal of cheap criticism and uninformed attack upon the Local Government Board. I can only add, with regard to another criticism, that anyone would think that nothing had been done in mining districts, whereas, at this moment there are housing schemes in over thirty mining districts, eighteen of which are in South Wales, to which the hon. Member referred. I noticed that he did not to-day refer to the subject-matter of a question he put to me the day before yesterday. It it not fair for hon. Members to say that nothing has been done, as demonstrated by the Poor Law Commission's Report in 1906. In that very district of Swansea and Merthyr Tydvil, in which it was alleged that nothing was being done in 1906, over 4,000 cottages have been erected, and, as, a result, the infant mortality has been reduced 36 per cent. and the general death rate has been reduced 28 per cent. It is no good for hon. Members to drag up ancient Reports and musty documents and to ignore what is now being done. I can only say that if time permitted I could give even further evidence of the way in which both in new houses, making houses fit for habitation, and town planning schemes that came within the purview of the Local Government Board. Great progress has been made. In conclusion, may I say that the Government has not said, and will not say a final word about how rural or urban housing should be assisted. That matter, as I said in this House a fortnight ago, is now before a committee on the readjustment of local taxation. We object to doles and subventions to individuals that would defeat their object, but we are willing with an open mind to consider Grants-in-Aid for public health by means of which water supplies, drainage, sewerage, and housing can be more reasonably and better assisted in many ways than they are now, and when the public committee appointed to inquire into this matter present their Report the House and the country will find

    1925
    that a Government which has done so much in social reform during the last six years as this Government has done, will not be behind in grappling boldly and seriously with a problem that invites our support, has our sympathy, and will secure our assistance.
    Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 255.

    Division No. 112.]

    AYES

    [11.0 p.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nield, Herbert

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Baird, J. L.

    Grant, J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Greene, W. R.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baldwind, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bird, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan, F. (Ayr, N.)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Keswick, Henry

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Crichton Stuart, Lard Ninian

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Winterton, Earl

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lyttelton, Rt. Han. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fell, Arthur

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Forster, Henry William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Barnes, George N.

    Boland, John Pius

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barton, W.

    Bowerman, Charles W

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Brace, William

    Brady, P. J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogg, David C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Radford, G. H.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Alien

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clough, William

    Joyce Michael

    Richards, Thomas

    Clynes, John R.

    Keating, Matthew

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Keilaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cotton, William Francis

    King, J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade))

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowlands, James

    Cullinan, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, E. William (Elflon)

    Leach, Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Delany, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shortt, Edward

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lynch. A. A.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Doris, W.

    McGhee, Richard

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutton, John E.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Thomas, J. H.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Falconer, James

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Firench, Peter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Field, William

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meagher, Michael

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    France, G. A.

    Molloy, M.

    Wardle, George J.

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morrell, Philip

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Gill, A. H.

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Muldoon, John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Webb, H.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greig, Colonel James Wilson

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hackett, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Hercourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wing, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Malley, William

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1914, the sum of £24,243,050 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Masterman.]
The remaining orders were read and postponed.

EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT (ARREST OF FOREIGN SUBJECTS).
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move," That this House do now aljourn."
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I desire to raise a question, which is giving rise to a great deal of interest outside, and which is an exceedingly serious matter, whichever way it is finally to be settled. I refer to the interpretation put upon the Capitulations in Egypt by the Foreign Secretary. I should like, first of all, to make it perfectly clear that he and the Government are really responsible for what is being done in Egypt. I could quote the dispatches of Lord Granville, written in January, 1883 and 1884, but, in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself on the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote, I will not do more than quote that statement. He said, with reference to the Capitulations:—
"We who are in the position of insisting that the Egyptian Government should take our advice about these matters, would have to go into the question to see whether the Egyptian Government had acted in accordance with the Capitulations or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1913, col. 391.]
That is perfectly clear, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not resist the further statement I make, as supplementing his own, that the Egyptian Government cannot take any action without his advice. Consequently, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman moves can the Egyptian Government move in this matter. If that is made quite clear the question then arises whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in the attitude he has taken up. He has answered questions and taken part in the Foreign Office Debate in reference to this matter in a way which is really a little amazing. A very distinguished diplomatist and international lawyer has written regarding the answers he gave me on Thursday. He says that from the answers
1930
which the right hon. Gentleman gave it is evident that, there is a somewhat deplorable lacuna in his knowledge of the subject, otherwise he could not have committed himself to the view which he expressed. This authority states that under the Capitulations no right of extradition exists whatever. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of one who has written largely upon this subject, and whose name is pretty well known. At this late hour one can only hurriedly rush over the various points. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that his position can only be a negative one. As a matter of fact that is not the position the Porte has taken up in similar cases. I can only give one instance this evening. Since 1881 the Consuls have been claiming certain rights of criminal jurisdiction over their nationals when those nationals are in conflict with the nationals of a different sovereignty. The Capitulations are put quite clearly. If, say, an Englishman and a Frenchman are guilty of something upon which a civil action can lie, they have to be tried by their own Consuls, and those Consuls have done their best to extend that civil jurisdiction in order that it might become criminal jurisdiction. The Porte has demanded that foreign nations demanding capitulatory privileges should establish their claim, but up to this day that clam has not been established. Other cases could be given. I simply give that one to show that the Porte has again and again resisted the encroachment of the Consuls who have tried to extend their rights under these Capitulations. The right hon. Gentleman referred us to the letter of the Capitulations themselves, and he has been good enough to place in the Library two small volumes which give us the terms of these Capitulations. We must remember in reading these that every nation enjoying these privileges enjoys also the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, so that the Capitulation which is widest and most liberal is also enjoyed by all the others. I do not care which Capitulation he takes. There is not a single expression, there is not a single Clause in the Capitulations which justify the Russian Consul in the action he took the other day in deporting Adamovitz. Moreover, that can be supported by quotations. There is a rule which appears to have grown up to which the interpretation of this Capitulation is subject. There is a statement on that rule by one who previously occupied the position now held by the right hon.

1931
Gentleman with reference to Turkey itself:—
"I think there is one rule more than another which has been observed in modern times by all independent states, both great and small. It is a rule not to deliver up political refugees unless the state is bound to do so by the positive obligation of a treaty—"
That refers to Turkey, and the implication there is that Turkey is not bound, because it was in a case very similar to this which I am raising that this observation was made—
"and His Majesty's Government believe that such treaty engagements are few, if indeed any exist. The laws of hospitality, the dictates of humanity, and the general feelings of mankind forbid such surrender, and any independent government which of its own free will were to make such a surrender would he universally and deservedly stigmatised, degraded, and dishonoured."
That is an extract from a dispatch written by Lord Palmerston in reference to an application by Russia and Austria to Turkey to extradite certain rebels who had crossed her border. It shows the opinion of the English Foreign Office in those days. No single change in the capitulations affecting political prisoners has been made since this dispatch was written in 1849. I admit that it is very largely a question of precedent. The letter of Lord Cromer in the "Times" to-day given an extract from a report which he himself sent to the Foreign Office. Anyone who reads that will see at once how different Lord Cromer's case is from the Adamovitz case, because Lord Cromer's dispatch begins with the statement that the three Russians who were deported had conspired to blow up a Russian ship then lying in the port of Alexandria, and it was a case where the crime was done in Egyptian territory to a Russian ship and where the accusation would have lain in Egypt. There, of course, the case was one that would come under the Capitulations which were drawn up and agreed upon for the protection of foreign subjects in Egypt. That is not the case which we are raising, and it must not be taken as a parallel or precedent. The great case was that of 1849 when Russia and Austria united to get deported a certain leader with from 3,000 to 5,000 others, and in presenting their case they simply detailed every consideration that told in their favour and never mentioned the Capitulations, though they executed them just as they do now. This case is absolutely unanswerable so far as precedent is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have protected the party's rights. He is
1932
now their custodian so far as Egypt is concerned. He has failed to protect those rights, and has allowed the Russian Consul to take an action which may be repeated to-morrow very much to the detriment of the good name of this country and the safety of subjects of Russia and Egypt. I hope that even now it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to take action, because he is not precluded from doing so under the Capitulations.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Capitulations have come to me as a matter of practice if not of express Treaty rights. What the practice is, in the opinion of the distinguished man who had himself to do with that practice— Lord Cromer—is stated in a letter to the "Times" by him to-day. He refers to a Report of his in which he dealt with a particular case, and he goes so far as to say that a foreign Consul may demand one of his nationals to be given up to him without alleging any charge at all. This statement is made in the Annual Report of Lord Cromer for the year 1906-7, and that is the view of one who had to deal with the question of deportations and the practice which he found in Egypt at the time he wrote that Report. The hon. Member who has just spoken has made various assumptions about this case. He has assumed that Adamovitz was a political refugee, and he assumed that no charge was brought against him for anything that was done in Egypt. I have confined myself to saying that I do not know what charge was made against him, and I understand the practice of the Russian Consul was not to state the charge. I do agree with the hon. Member on one point, as to the Capitulations being a matter of practice and not of express treaty provisions. It is very desirable that the practice should be closely watched and that you should not have the rights of the Capitulations extended by cases occurring which are an extension of the practice. What I propose, therefore, to do in this case is to get a full report of what actually happened, and a full report of what has been the practice before. When I have that full report I will look at it, and compare what has happened in this case with what happened in previous cases, so as to form an opinion whether there was any extension of the practice in this case or not. I will lay the Papers before the House, and I will

1933
endeavour to get that done before the Foreign Office Vote or before the Session closes or on some opportunity so that the House may not be precluded from discussing the case with full information before it, because I agree on this point that the practice must be carefully watched, and it is very undesirable that there should be an extension of the practice allowed to go on. We have really arrived, without reference to cases of this kind at all, at the conclusion that it is most desirable that the Capitulations should be modified, because of the way in which they hamper the development of Egypt itself. I should deprecate its being thought that we want to alter the Capitulations in order to make Egypt an asylum for political refugees of all kinds, because that undoubtedly would make it exceedingly difficult to get the consent of the other Powers to a modification of the Capitulations. But I see great inconvenience and impediment to the free exercise of its own rights by the Govern-
1934
ment of Egypt, and I think that raises the whole question of the modification of these powers. As regards this particular case, I will find out exactly what has occurred and compare it with previous cases.
Mr. MORRELL: I am sure we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply to-night. With reference to what he has said about Lord Cromer's opinion, that is merely an opinion and is not covered by the facts here. We have not hitherto had any actual case which is a precedent for this case. I think if my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary had adopted this tone a little earlier it would have avoided the necessity for this discussion.
It being half-past, Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Public General Acts.
  Public General Acts.
  Civil Service Boy Clerks.
  Civil Service Boy Clerks.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  LOCAL INSPECTORS (ADDRESSES).
  LOCAL INSPECTORS (ADDRESSES).
  Post Office (Ex-Royal Engineers).
  Post Office (Ex-Royal Engineers).
  Killaturk Grazing Farm.
  Killaturk Grazing Farm.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Dingle Harbour.
  Dingle Harbour.
  Irish School Children (Dental Treatment).
  Irish School Children (Dental Treatment).
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Grazier's Cattle, Boxford, Roscommon.
  Grazier's Cattle, Boxford, Roscommon.
  Bank Robbery, Listowel.
  Bank Robbery, Listowel.
ROYAL NAVY
  NAVAL BARRACKS
  NAVAL BARRACKS
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  sale of Cooked Meats (East and West Ham).
  sale of Cooked Meats (East and West Ham).
  Mrs. Pankhurst.
  Mrs. Pankhurst.
  Blackhill Colliery Accident.
  Blackhill Colliery Accident.
  Early Closing (East Ham).
  Early Closing (East Ham).
  Colonial Doctors.
  Colonial Doctors.
  Lairage Charges, Merklands Wharf, Glasgow.
  Lairage Charges, Merklands Wharf, Glasgow.
  Tuberculous Cattle (Great Britain).
  Tuberculous Cattle (Great Britain).
  Irish Cattle.
  Irish Cattle.
  Industrial Agreements (Report of Industrial Council).
  Industrial Agreements (Report of Industrial Council).
  Gloucester Postal Hours.
  Gloucester Postal Hours.
  Trentagh Sub-Office, County Donegal.
  Trentagh Sub-Office, County Donegal.
  Post Office (Assistant Clerks).
  Post Office (Assistant Clerks).
  Richmond Park Roads.
  Richmond Park Roads.
DOONER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

McBRIDE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Violet McBride with William McBride, her husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on petition), and a copy of the. proceedings in and of the decree of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

York Corporation.

Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Rail-less Traction).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

LORD WIMBORNE'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills he had on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed the Lord Chelmsford as guardian or protector of the infants, the Honourable Ivor Grosvenor Guest, John Spencer Churchill Guest, Winston Frederick Churchill Guest, Raymond Richard Guest, the Honourable Rosemary Sibell Guest, the Honourable Cynthia Edith Guest, Diana Henrietta Guest, the Honourable Frederick Ivor Thesiger, Andrew Charles Gerard Thesiger,
600
James Henry Bertie Rodney, Charles Christian Simon Rodney, Francis William Rodney, Charles Amherst Villiers, Matthew White Ridley, Joan Frances Vere Thesiger, Anne Molyneux Thesiger, Bridget Mary Thesiger, Margaret St. Clair Sydney Thesiger, Barbara Villiers, Veronica Villiers, Gwladys Margorie Ridley, Vivien. Catherine Evelyn Ridley named in the Bill to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.

BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 8th of April and 5th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to

601
the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

M. Linlithgow,

L. Ribblesdale (Chairman),

L. Monteagle (M. Sligo),

L. Manners,

L. Crawshaw;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 24 th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIGAN, &c.) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

SALE OF CHEAP SPORTING GUNS IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to a circular which has been largely distributed in Ireland stating the fact that cheap Belgian sporting guns are sold in great numbers in Ireland, and inasmuch as these guns are most dangerous to use, especially with smokeless powder, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Belgian proof marks are recognised by them, and whether these marks are considered as guaranteeing these guns in the same way as the London and Birmingham proof marks do.
It seems to me that these guns are stamped by the Belgian Government, and I believe the mark is recognised by the British Government as a sufficient guarantee that the guns are safe to use, though it is rather strange that this proof mark should
602
be so recognised when English-made guns which are far superior may not be sold in this country unless they have been stamped under the Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1868. These cheap Belgian guns, which are admitted into Ireland without the proof mark which is necessary in the case of our own guns, are dangerous when black powder is used, but are exceedingly dangerous when smokeless powder is used. The farmers who buy these Belgian guns are not aware that there is great risk to their lives in using them. In some cases there have been serious injuries to the users through the explosion of the gun, and in one case there was loss of life. Your Lordships can imagine what the quality of the gun is when I tell you that it can be purchased in Ireland at the price of 29 s. 6d., and you can buy the same gun for 16 s. 6d. in Belgium. I believe that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce recently drafted a Bill to prohibit the sale of unproof firearms, but I have not yet seen the measure.
The circular which has been largely distributed in Ireland is an anonymous one, but I wrote to Dublin to find out as far as was possible whether everything stated in the circular was correct. I asked the secretary of the Irish Game Protection Association to go round to the gunmakers in Dublin and make inquiries, and he writes to me as follows—
"I am in receipt of your letter and have to-day visited the principal gunmakers in Dublin, showing them the circular re unproved guns in Ireland. They confirm the statements made therein, and consider that the sale of the class of guns referred to is doing great injury in the country."
I admit that the gunmakers are naturally interested parties. They do not want a large number of cheap guns introduced into Ireland. But not only are these guns dangerous to the users. They are also a great encouragement to poachers. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, so far as the Board of Trade are concerned they know nothing of the circular to which the noble Earl has referred, and I should be much obliged if he would be kind enough to let me have a copy of it. The question raised by the noble Earl is whether under the Gun Proof Act certain foreign marks are recognised by the two authorities in this country, one in London and the other in Birmingham, whose duty it is to

603
impress gun barrels and pass them in this country. As far as England is concerned these two authorities have power to pass as adequate certain foreign proof marks, notably that of Belgium in the case of Liège. The Liège proof mark is registered with these two authorities and is accepted in England. But the Gun Act of 1868 does not apply to Ireland and Scotland. Consequently in those two countries gulls can be sold without any mark whatever. I fully recognise, as the noble Earl has said, that the sale of these cheap guns in Ireland must be a source of great danger to the users, especially in the case of smokeless powder, and I will raise the whole question with the Board of Trade and let the noble Earl have a reply in due course.

EXCISE PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I now rise to draw attention to the laxity of the Excise officers in Ireland in prosecuting offenders against the Excise Game taws, and to move for the following Returns, viz., of—

1. The number of prosecutions in the years 1912–1913 brought by the Excise on the initiative of their own officers or the Royal Irish Constabulary apart from cases reported to them by the Irish Game Protection Association.

2. All Excise game offences in the same period which were compromised by the Department out of Court.

We have in Ireland a Game Protection Association, which employs inspectors who are paid for by the local game certificate-holders. Prosecutions are instituted by this association and in very many cases they are successful. The association has the effect generally of making people take out the £3 gun and game licence, and the £22,000 annually drawn by the Excise from gun and game licences in Ireland would be considerably less but for the efforts of this association. Yet when cases of men shooting game without a licence are reported to the Excise they either take no action whatever or settle the matter out of Court by a small compromise fine. I do not know whether the Government would admit that that is compounding a felony; at all events it is winking at a misdemeanour. The association does it duty by the public and is well supported, and there is no ill-feeling in the country against it. In fact, respectable farmers are only
604
too glad that people who poach on their land without a game licence should be prosecuted, and I submit that it is only fair, where the association makes use of its subscriptions in helping to carry out the law, that the Excise officers should perform the duty which they are well paid to carry out.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to quote some of the cases, very frequent ones, that have occurred in Ireland. I have in my hand a list of offences against the Excise Game Laws reported by this association to the Excise but in which either no proceedings were instituted or where proceedings were instituted they were settled by payment out of Court. It is a list of ten cases; in seven no proceedings were taken and three were compromised. I shall be happy to hand the list to the noble Lord. One case which occurred in November, 1912, was that of Henry Wilson Foxe, of 4, Halkin-street, Grosvenor-place, London. He was found by the association's inspector on the townland of Letterfrack, Co. Galway, where he shot one hare and one grouse without a game certificate. No proceedings have been taken in that case by the Excise. The second case I shall quote is that of Patrick White, of Clashganny, Newcastle, Co. Tipperary, who was found by the keeper of the Suir Valley Coursing Club in January, 1913, at eleven o'clock in the morning, with a gun and dog when he fired at a snipe. He held no licence. The Coursing Club prosecuted this man for trespass in pursuit of game, when he was convicted and fined £1, but no proceedings have been taken by the Excise. Arthur Finnegan, of Derryrellan, Co. Tyrone, was found by the association's inspector on September 8, 1912, with a gun and collie dog. He held no licence, but no proceedings have been taken by the Excise.
Now let me take a case of compromising. In August, 1912, James Donnelly, of Drumragh, Omagh, was found by the association's inspector with a double-barrelled gun beating for game. He held no licence. This case was settled out of Court by the Excise on payment of a compromise fine. I could quote a number of similar cases, than which I do not think anything could show greater neglect of their duty on the part of the Excise officers. I have also particulars of four cases from the Limerick branch of the Irish Game Protection Association, and I will quote the most outrageous one. On February 6 of this year Jos. O'Callaghan, of Thomas-

605
street, Limerick, was found by the association's inspector, at half-past four in the afternoon, with a gun and setter dog beating for game on march near Tervoe, Limerick. On being challenged he said that he had a game licence but did not bring it with him, and that his name was Michael Cusack, of 55, George-street, Limerick. This man Cusack holds a game licence. The inspector, suspecting that a false name had been given, made inquiries and ascertained that the man was not Michael Cusack, and that Michael Cusack could not have been out shooting on the evening in question. The inspector subsequently identified the man as Jos. O'Callaghan, of Thomas-street, Limerick. The man was then charged with being in pursuit of game without having a proper licence, giving a false name and address, and personating another man who held a game licence. The Game Protection Association communicated with the Excise authorities, and this is the answer which they received from the Custom House, Limerick, under date April 19, 1913—
"In reply I beg to state that the Commissioners do not think it necessary to take action in any of the cases referred to except in the case of R. B. Quin, which was dealt with by themselves."
I do not know how that case was dealt with; it is not stated.
The real truth of the matter is that these officers do not do their duty. I do not say they are incompetent because they are perfectly well able to do their duty, but they are idle. They are paid to see that the proper revenue is collected but they do not collect it although cases are reported to them time after time. It may be said that perhaps they are afraid of becoming unpopular, but I live in Ireland a great deal and I have not heard in modern times of a single case of the boycotting or attacking in any way of an Excise officer who had taken action in these cases. The result of this neglect to take action is that the proper revenue is not collected where it should be. The Excise officers take no notice of flagrant offences although fully reported to them. It must be remembered that there is a good deal of wild shooting in Ireland, which is valuable and attracts tourists and sportsmen to the country, and many times complaints have come from gentlemen who do not live in Ireland but go there for sport to the effect that if these cases were attended to poaching would be stopped and the country would benefit
606
thereby. There is no great feeling amongst respectable farmers for the poacher. He is a great nuisance, and he very often prevents the herd on the land from getting a present when gentlemen go there to shoot.
I could give many more cases in which the law has not been properly carried out. I believe I am right in saying that strong representations have been made to the Excise officers from the Executive Government in Ireland, but the matter goes on being neglected. The Irish Game Protection Association is becoming more and more important and is doing good work, and surely we have a right to ask that when flagrant cases are reported, especially such cases as the Limerick one which I have brought before the House to-day, the Excise officers should do their duty. I beg to move for the two Returns set out in my Notice on the Paper.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Returns of:

1. The number of prosecutions under the Excise Came Laws in the years 1912–1913 brought by the Excise on the initiative of their own officers or the Royal Irish Constabulary apart from cases reported to them by the Irish Game Protection Association;

2. All Excise game offences in the same period which were compromised by the Department out of Court.—(The Earl of Mayo.)

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, the noble Earl will certainly not expect me to go into the cases which he has mentioned and of which until this moment I had no knowledge. Had the noble Earl given me an intimation that he intended to refer to these cases I would have looked into them and given him an answer to-day. As it is, if he desires it, I shall be glad to ask for an inquiry into the different cases. But on this occasion I can only deal broadly with the question raised in his Notice on the Paper. I should like to assure the noble Earl that as far as the Board of Customs and Excise are concerned he may be perfectly certain that there has been no laxity at all in this matter, and that they have done all they could to secure that there should be no laxity in their officers as regards the renewal of licences or the discovery of persons who have not taken out licences and who ought to do so. It is perfectly

607
obvious, it being the duty of the Customs and Excise authorities to collect as much revenue as they can, that they would give instructions to their officers that the revenue should not be in any way defrauded through neglect. Not merely are these stringent instructions given by the Board to their officers, but they very carefully consider every report which is made to them either by their own officers, by the Irish Game Protection Association, or by the public at large.
It must be borne in mind that the Board are not only responsible for collecting revenue in Ireland, but also in Scotland; and up till quite lately they were responsible for its collection in England as well. I can assure the noble Earl that there has been uniformity of practice in the matter. No system has been applied to Ireland that has not been applied to Scotland and was not applied to England in the old days, and I have never heard that there has been any complaint of laxity as far as Scotland is concerned, and certainly as regards England I can speak from personal experience that before this matter was handed over to the county councils there was never any dissatisfaction with the way in which the Excise officers discharged their duties. It is rather curious that there should be this complaint in Ireland, but I think it must be due to some misunderstanding as regards the action of the Board in this matter.
Full statutory discretion is given to the Board of Customs and Excise as to whether or not they should prosecute in particular cases, and they also have full power to settle by compromise. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there may be cases where a compromise is desirable, especially where the case is not so clear that a conviction is certain. On the other hand, by compromise the authorities often get quite as large a sum out of the defaulter as they would get if they went before the Court; and as they have a statutory right to use their discretion there is no reason why they should not compromise if they think it desirable to do so. Many cases that have been investigated by the Board when they came to be looked into did not come under the Game Licensing Act at all. The noble Earl referred once or twice to the question of poaching and to the desirability of action being taken in the interest of game preserving. I am a game preserver myself, and, am only
608
too anxious to see game preserved; but we must not mix up the question of Excise with the question of game preserving. In some cases when an informer has come before the Excise and offered to bring forward evidence which would lead to conviction, it has been found that he has declined, when he had to go into a Court of Law, to adhere to the statement he had made; and it is certainly undesirable that the Government should prosecute in cases of that sort, when their own witness turns round and repudiates the statement he originally made. It is of the greatest importance that the Government should only go into Court when they feel practically certain of getting a conviction.
While the Board of Customs and Excise are only too ready to receive information from the Irish Game Protection Association, and quite appreciate the efforts which that body has made, I would point out that there are many cases in which the association's inspectors have not been very reliable. I will quote two or three cases to show what I mean, and if the noble Earl desires to have the names and the full particulars I will give them to him privately. In the first case which I shall quote the offence was committed on November 21, 1910. An inspector of the Irish Game Protection Association was prosecuted and fined for assaulting two boys who were on their father's land and refused to give their names. He was apparently trespassing and produced a revolver, and when asked whether he had a licence expressed himself-utterly ignorant of the requirements of the law in this respect. Another inspector of this association, amongst other performances, was found by the police drunk in the public streets in possession of a loaded revolver. He did not possess a licence, and was convicted for this offence.
THE EARL OF MAYO: What was the date of this second case?
LORD STRACHIE: August 14, 1908. Then there was a case on February 13, 1912. The association's inspector at first said the defendant was not the offender; then he said he thought he was, and finally he declared that he was the offender. The case was dismissed as it was quite clear that the man was not the offender. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the Board of Customs and Excise in Ireland have had difficulties to encounter, and

609
when inspectors of the Irish Game Protection Association report these cases it is very necessary for them to be looked into carefully, having regard to the fact that some of the cases taken up have been dismissed simply because the inspectors were not reliable persons.
The noble Earl has moved for two Returns, but I would venture to point out that, if made, the Returns would be to a large extent misleading, because it would be difficult to give in every case the whole of the particulars. Moreover, the labour and expense would be very large indeed. I therefore hope the noble Earl will not press his Motion. If we were to deal with the whole of the eases we should have to give the reasons for the failure, and we should have to give cases, some of which I have quoted, which might bring a certain amount of odium upon the association. This we should not at all desire, because we fully appreciate that in many cases the association is doing a great deal of good work. But I have given cases which show that mistakes have been made by these inspectors, and the mere fact of an inspector of this association coming forward with the allegation that a man has committed an offence cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that we should take up the case and prosecute. I can assure the noble Earl that we are most anxious to take up every case where there is a chance of securing a conviction, but what we object to do is to take a case into Court where it is impossible, owing to the very unsatisfactory state of the evidence, to get a conviction.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that after the appeal which has just been made by the noble Lord my noble friend behind me might be well advised not to press his Motion. I doubt very much, if these Returns were to be granted, whether they would really give the noble Earl the kind of information he desires. The point of his observations was that a number of these cases were improperly compromised out of Court, and that sufficient notice was not taken of the reports, on the one hand, of the Constabulary, and on the other of the inspectors of the Irish Game Protection Association. All that my noble friend would learn from these Returns would be that a certain number of prosecutions had taken place and that in a certain number of cases there had been a compromise, but unless
610
the reasons were given in each case he would have no opportunity of forming an opinion whether or not the case was a proper one for compromise. I rather agree with the noble Lord who spoke for the Government that in some cases a compromise is not a bad settlement of the difficulty. In these circumstances I cannot help hoping that my noble friend will be satisfied with the general assurance which he has received that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Department concerned, and that in the incur while they will not be given the trouble of preparing these very elaborate Returns.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess I shall not press my Motion. I can, however, assure the noble Lord opposite that the Irish Game Protection Association are not afraid of the possibility of any odium being thrown upon them by the granting of these Returns. There are black sheep in every community, and I am sure the inspectors referred to by the noble Lord—one of the cases he quoted was in 1908 and another in 1910—have been got rid of long ago. I hope that the authorities will take a little more trouble with regard to gun licences and see that these people do take them out, and that they are properly dealt with if they do not. There are, I agree, cases where there should be compromise, but I hope the practice will not be carried in future to the extent to which we know it has been carried in the past. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.