I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what was the nature of the assurances made by His Majesty's Government to the German Government, alluded to by Count von Bülow in the Reichstag on the 8th inst.; and will he lay the Papers upon the Table.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has His Majesty's Government made to or received from the German Ambassador any communication in reference to the statements made by the Colonial Secretary as to severities practised by German troops in the Franco-German war of 1870–71, or in reference to the remarks made upon those statements in the Reichstag by Count von Bülow; and, if so, can he state the general effect of any such communication.

To ask the under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what was the nature of the assurances which, according to the statement of the German Chancellor in the Reichstag, were given by His Majesty's Government on the subject of a speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can inform the House if any assurances have been given to the German Government such as the German Imperial Chancellor in the Reichstag stated were given by His Majesty's Government in reference to the recent public utterances of the Colonial Secretary; and what is the nature of such assurances, if any.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the Government will take steps to contradict the statement that the Foreign Office has been placed under the necessity of making official apology to the German Government on account of speeches recently made by a Minister of the Crown; and, if not, whether he can inform the House, without prejudice to public interest, if any explanation was made or assurance given to the German Government in reference to such speeches, and if any Papers containing or referring to this subject can be laid before the House.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the assurances given by the British Government to Count von Bülow, the German Chancellor, and referred to by him in the Reichstag on 8th January, that the speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary in Edinburgh on 25th October last, and the charges therein made against the barbarity of the German Army, were not intended to hurt the feelings of the German people: Whether these assurances were given by the British Government on its own initiative, or as the result of representations from the German Government: And, will he state through what medium these assurances were conveyed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to a statement by Count von Bülow that certain assurances had been given to him in explanation of a speech made by the Colonial Secretary at Edinburgh. Will he state whether such assurances have been given; and, if so, whether he will furnish the House of Commons with the full text of such assurances alleged to have been received by Count von Bülow.

I can answer all the questions very briefly. No assurances have been officially asked for on the subject. There were no charges of barbarities made by my right hon. friend against the German or any other army, as is suggested in some of the questions. In an unofficial conversation this fact was pointed out by Lord Lansdowne to the German Ambassador. Nothing, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, requires to be said in the direction of either qualifying or withdrawing the speech of my right hon. friend.

Who began this strictly unofficial conversation—Lord Landsdowne or the German Ambassador? Did Lord Landsdowne first make an apology, or did the German Ambassador demand it?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken to carry out his instructions concerning the break-up of the refugee camps in the Transvaal and Orange territories, and for their removal to sanitary stations on the sea coast.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 902, issued this morning, for information on the subject.

:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received any remonstrances from the Cape Government in reference to the recent extension of martial law to Cape Town; and, if so, whether he will publish the documents.

No, sir.

Am I to understand that no remonstrance at all has been received from either Sir Gordon Sprigg or from Sir J. Rose-Innes?

No remonstrance has been received on the subject whatever.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the existing instructions to the Commander-in-Chief and High Commissioner in South Africa prohibit them from entering upon negotiations with the Boer leaders with the view of arranging terms, of peace; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to take into favourable consideration the revision of these instructions in the direction of giving these servants of His Majesty discretionary powers as to negotiation.

No. The instructions given in April, and printed at page 2 of Cd. 663, have not been revoked.

May I ask whether Lord Milner's functions are restricted to forwarding messages from the Boers?

That is not a question arising out of the right hon. gentleman's answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Lord Milner has issued a Proclamation making the collection of interest due on mortgages in the Transvaal legal as from 27th October 1901: And, whether ordinary debts other than mortgages on real property are still barred from recovery by process in the courts.

(1) A Proclamation was issued by Lord Milner on the 9th October1901, making the collection of interest due on mortgages in the Transvaal legal from the date of that Proclamation, the text of which will be found at page 117 of Blue Book Cd. 903. (2) No Court at present exists in the Transvaal having jurisdiction in civil cases where the cause of action arose before the 1st of September 1900, the date of the annexation of the Transvaal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether copies of the heliograms which passed between Sir Redvers Buller and Sir George White during the Seige of Ladysmith will be printed and circulated among honourable Members before the termination of the Debate on the Address to the Throne.

It is not proposed to publish the heliograms alluded to apart from telegrams affecting the same operations.

When will both heliogram and telegrams be published? (Cries of "Order.") This is a question arising directly out of the answer. Let him answer "Yes" or "No," but he must not sit silent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state when the Volunteer Service Companies that were enlisted for Service at the Cape a year ago may be expected to return home.

I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the site for the battery of the Lynton Volunteer Artillery Company was inspected and approved of more than a year ago; whether any guns have yet been supplied to the Company; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay.

This particular question raises the more general question of the supply of guns for practice to Artillery Volunteer Corps. It has, after further consideration, been decided to form practice batteries only in the neighbourhood of works of defence under the direction of the officers commanding artillery in the districts, so that the practice can be carried out under their supervision. Accordingly a battery will not be constructed at Lynmouth, to which place the hon. Member appears to refer. But drill guns will be supplied to the corps when available.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, seeing that the elected Members of the Council of Government of Malta addressed a letter to Lord Onslow, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, when last December he was the guest of the Governor at Malta, requesting the favour of an interview for the purpose of explaining to him the grievances of the Maltese people on the taxation and the language questions, he will explain why Lord Onslow declined to hold any personal communication with them; and will he state on whose suggestion Lord Onslow thus acted.

Lord Onslow was on a private visit to the Governor of Malta. He informed the elected Members of the Council of Government that I was already in possession of their views as to the alleged grievances of the Maltese people; but that if they had anything to add he would submit it to me if forwarded to him in writing. No such communication was, however, made to him. Lord Onslow's action has my approval.

:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what is the status of Koweit; is it an independent or a protected State, or is it an integral part of the Turkish Empire; and what is the extent of territory under the rule of the Sheik of Koweit.

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the debate yesterday.†

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the officer appointed to be the representative of His Majesty's Government at Bitlis is a Consul or Vice-Consul.

The officer in question, Mr. Freeman, is a Vice-Consul. He has almost fourteen years service in the East.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the post of British Consul at Konia is still vacant; whether His Majesty's Government intend that it shall remain so; and whether, having regard to the present condition and the prospective interests of British trade in the event of the construction of a Euphrates Valley Railway, the Government have decided that the expenditure involved in the maintenance at that centre of a Consular representative shall be incurred.

†See Page 130.

There is at present no Consular representative of this country at Konia. The re-appointment of a Consul to this post is under consideration. But the circumstances which will arise in the event of the completion of the Euphrates Valley Railway do not seem to require immediate consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will so extend the reference to the Committee upon the Merchant Service as to include the question of how best to secure that men shipped as able seamen shall be proved to be qualified as such.

The interpretation of the terms of reference to the Committee is a matter for the Chairman; but I take it that the point to which the hon. Member alludes comes within the terms of reference to the Mercantile Marine Committee, in so far as rating is a question that bears upon the well-being of seamen.

May I ask the right hon. Gentlemen whether, in view of the fact that there is a Scottish and an English Member of Parliament on this Committee, an Irish Member cannot also be put on?

I do not see how that arises out of the question.

I will put it down for Monday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he will state the total amount deposited by the public in the Post Office Savings Banks, the total cash reserves held by the savings banks, and the percentage of cash reserve to liabilities; and, whether, in view of the fall in the market value of securities held by savings banks, he will recommend the Postmaster General to strengthen the cash reserves.

The total amount standing to the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st of December last, is estimated to be £140,409,000. There is no special cash reserve for the Post Office Savings Bank, nor is there any present intention of creating one. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the security of the depositors is the credit of the State with all the available resources behind it.

The hon. Gentleman says there is no special cash reserve; is there any cash reserve at all?

A small cash balance.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps he proposes to take in pursuance of the Report of the Committe on Preservatives and Colouring Matter in Articles of Food.

I have not at present arrived at a decision in the matter. The Report is, however, receiving my careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what is the profession or what has been the previous employment of Mr. Fitzpatrick, who has just been appointed a resident magistrate in Ireland, and what has been Mr. Fitzpatrick's training for the duties of the office to which he has been appointed. Will he state what steps the Lord Lieutenant has taken to satisfy himself of Mr. Fitzpatrick's legal knowledge; and, if it be not injurious to the public interest, will he say what are the qualifications of this gentleman for this office.

Mr. Fitzpatrick has been in the Commission of the Peace, and has regularly discharged the duties of a Magistrate in Petty Sessions. His local knowledge and ex- perience in magisterial duties have satisfied the Lord Lieutenant of his fitness to fill the position of Resident Magistrate to which he has been appointed.

Is he a poor relation of the right hon. Gentleman?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seat for the Eastern Division of the county of Down has been vacated by the appointment of Mr. Rentoul to the Assistant Judgeship of the City of London Court; and if it has been so vacated, does he intend to move for a new writ, and when.

Yes Sir, I propose to make the writ on Monday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether application has been made for a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Arthur Lynch, Member for Galway.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has any information to the effect that the Member for Galway City has held an officer's appointment in the Boer forces, and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take when the Member in question presents himself to be sworn at the Table of the House.

Mr. Lynch will be arrested as soon as he lands.

:I beg to give notice that I will on another day ask whether the Government intend to move, according to precedent, that Mr. Arthur Lynch be summoned to attend at the bar of the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the carrying companies operating in Ireland compel the consignors of live stock to sign through consignment notes, in which the companies claim to deliver live stock in whatever condition they may happen to be, and at whatever time is convenient to the companies, thus relieving them from all liability, except where wilful neglect on the part of their servants can be proved; whether he is aware that a trial has taken place regarding the matter; and whether he will cause inquires to be made as to the terms and conditions of those consignment notes, with a view to bring the carrying companies under the operation of the Carriers Act in through rate transactions.

I have referred this question to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, as President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the subject for some future day my right hon. friend will be prepared to deal with it.

said he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the careless chronology and unfortunate literary style of the Resolution. The House by it was asked on the second day to do something that should have been done on the first day of the Session—was asked, in fact, to-day to do something yesterday. The Resolution spoke of "such notices" without any prior reference to notices, and in the last line there was a reference to "sitting days. "Now, he had heard of sitting hens and of Sitting Bull, but not of sitting days, and he would suggest that the phrase should be altered so as to read, "On the day on which the House sits. "He would not press any alteration if the right hon. Gentleman objected, because he knew there were endless precedents for bad grammar in the resolutions in the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman were disposed to accept the suggestion he would move the necessary alterations of the Motion, and to put himself in order he would propose the insertion in line 4 after "session" of the words, "And who have not already done so."

said he bad simply adopted the form of Resolution which had been in use for many years. The words were thoroughly understood by the House, the practice under them was well established, and he thought it was hardly worth while to begin altering them now, especially as in the course of a few days he might induce the House to accept a proposition which would involve a change of the rule.

Very well, I will not press my Amendment.

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the serious inconvenience occasioned by the giving of notice personally at the Table when there was no occasion for doing so. Mr. Speaker himself had to intervene yesterday to check the practice, and such proceedings should be conducted in some of the purlieus of the House rather than in the House itself.

said he would like to make another suggestion. The Resolution spoke of the ballot. The ballot was a method of secret voting. There was here really no ballot but a lottery, and would it not therefore be well to substitute the word lottery for the word ballot. Again, if there were to be any change would it not be desirable instead of leaving the matter to chance, to adopt either a true ballot or some other method of selection which would give to Bills widely supported a better chance of being dealt with?

I desire to move the Amendment to the Address which stands in my name on the Paper. I wish, with all respect, to express my very sincere regret that we have no promise of legislation in this session upon this appalling problem of the Housing of the Working Classes. The First Lord of the Treasury has made a claim that the record of the Conservative Party is at least as honourable as that of the Liberal Party in regard to the Housing of the Working Classes, and, as far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to admit the claim. I hold that no Party in this House ought to have any monopoly of interest in this question, and I shall do my best under no circumstances to make a partisan speech on this occasion. I cannot forget that it was the First Lord of the Treasury 17 or 18 years ago who moved, as a private Member, a motion which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the Housing Question, and it was the present Premier who brought before the House of Lords a similar motion, with equally satisfactory results. I am willing to admit therefore that the Conservative party's record is at least as honourable as that of the Liberal party. But what I do say is that during the last six years the present administration has had an unrivalled opportunity, with its immense majority, for dealing with this matter step by step. There was no necessity to bring forward any heroic scheme which might have created greater difficulties than it was proposed to remedy. But certainly the Government might have done something to ameliorate the condition of the Working Classes both in the towns and in the country. Yet they have lamentably failed to utilise the opportunity which presented itself to them. I go back to the General Election of 1895. There was, happily, at that time no war issue presented to the people of this country. It is true that the Unionist party won its way into office on a bold comprehensive programme of social reform, a leading point of which was the question of the Housing of the Working Classes. What has been done? In 1899 the Colonial Secretary took over, from a private Member, a Bill entitled the "Small Houses Acquisition Ownership Bill," the object of which was to permit local authorities to lend money to the working classes to enable them to buy their own houses. There can be no doubt that the Colonial Secretary anticipated some very big results from this Bill, for, on the occasion of its Third Reading on July 4th, 1899, he made this statement:—

"I do not like to be optimistic, so I will content myself with saying that here is a Bill which carries out, one of the most important pledges the Unionist party gave at the General Election. We believe that it will be successful, and that it will be a great advantage to the Working Class population."

That was an ambitious forecast of what the Act would be. But I will now endeavour to tell the House what the result of the Bill has actually been. I have never been in any part of the country where I have not taken the trouble to ask how many people have availed themselves of the Act, and have borrowed money from the Local Authority in order to buy their own houses. I have never come across a single case, in any part of the country, where it has been done. I made inquiries, too, as to how the 29 borough councils of London were getting on in regard to this point. I find that only two have undertaken to administer the Act—Fulham and Hammersmith. At the former place, however, no application whatever has been received for a loan of money under the Act, while in regard to Hammersmith but one application was received, and even in that case the solicitor advised that it should not be granted, and the applicant, I believe, as a result of the publicity given to the matter, obtained the cash he required from private sources. The Bill, therefore, in practice has become more or less abortive. There remains the legislation of 1900. At that time the right hon. gentleman, the member of Sleaford, was President of the Local Government Board, and he brought in a Bill to enable Local Authorities to buy land outside their own areas. He evidently had a very ambitious idea of what the result would be, for, on the occasion of the Second Reading, he said—"The Bill I propose to pass will be a very great and a very considerable gain, and a great step in the right direction. "I wrote to the Local Government Board some months ago for information as to what had actually been done, and I was informed that up to that time no single application had been received from any Local Authority for permission to put in force the power to acquire land compulsory outside its own area. That Bill, too, has been practically abortive, and I think it was an almost inevitable result as it is of no use to give a municipality this power unless you at the same time concede prompt facilities for taking people to those areas which it is proposed to erect the houses. I now come to the General Election of 1900, and, although at that time the war was the question which stood out above all others, it is quite remarkable to what extent the subject of the Housing of the Working Classes came before the constituencies. There was scarcely a platform on which the housing problem was not mentioned, and no fewer than forty hon. Members who now sit opposite me dealt with it in their election address, and spoke of it as a matter of great urgency. I do not suggest that they were not quite sincere in the pledges they gave; indeed, I believe that the rank and file of the party opposite are ahead of the Treasury Bench, and all I desire is to brisk up that Bench a little in regard to this appalling problem. I do not intend to read the forty addresses to which I have referred, but I do propose to give an extract from two of them—one issued by a provincial Member and the other by a London Member. Now, the hon. Member for the Shipley Divison of Yorkshire, with, no doubt, an absolute sincerity of desire to get this matter pushed on, said:—

"The condition of Housing of the Working Classes is in many districts a scandal. At present the workers must be near their work, but often cannot find accommodation at reasonable rents. Proper provision must be made for such accommodation, and, in the alternative, for cheap and rapid transit to more healthy quarters—distant from the manufacturing centres."

And then, again, the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East also promised to place this subject in the very front rank of questions closely affecting that district. He said:—

"This is a matter which has engaged the earnest attention of Parliament on many occasions, and is one to which I shall devote every possible energy, feeling as I do that it is not an impossible task for Parliament to pass such legislation as shall ensure for every working man and his family in the east part of London decent and comfortable dwellings at fair rents."

I am confident that I shall have the sincere and hearty support of at least every one of the forty Members who dealt with this matter in their Election addresses. As to the gravity of the problem, I agree with the First Lord that there is no need now to waste time in the the "barren region of rhetorical description. "The evils we desire to ameliorate are so familiar to this House that there is no necessity to recite them, nor is there any need to submit long screeds of figures to show how relentlessly disease, immorality, drunkenness, and death follow in the train of over-crowding. Some little time ago the Whitechapel Board of Guardians called a Conference on this question of Housing, and the Rector of Spitalfields made some remarkable statements as to the existing condition of affairs. He said that in one alley in his parish in which there were 10 houses with 51 rooms, averaging 8 ft by 9 ft. 6 ins., no fewer than 254 people were housed. In another court, containing 6 houses and 22 rooms, 84 people were housed, and he goes on to give several cases in which there were as many as 6, 7, 8, and even 9 people in a room. Elsewhere, he had found one house with 8 rooms occupied by 45 people, one room containing 9 persons, another 8, and two of the rooms 7 each. He further said that near one of his parochial buildings there were 4 men and 6 women, all of whom he described as hard-working and respectable people, who were forced to live in a single room and sleep on the floor. What chance has chastity of thought and action under these conditions? I need not harrow the feelings of hon. Members by giving more of these details. We must all agree that if anything can be done to remedy this state of things it should be done as soon as possible. I have here the particulars of a court in Bloomsbury where in one small room of 2,240 cubit feet there were living and sleeping a man, woman and their seven children, whose ages ranged from 18 years to one month, and the medical officer of health said that if that over-crowding continued the children must die. Now, if these poor people had been in gaol or in a work house they would have had twice the amount of cubit space. It is no uncommon thing, as London Missionaries will tell you, for people to have to partake their meals from the top of a coffin containing the body of a deceased member of the family. It is not only that the accommodation is bad and shocking to the last degree, but for these wretched tenements preposterously high rents are exacted, and it is quite a common thing for a man to have to pay a third of his weekly wage in the form of rent. And yet, so keen is the competition for the accommodation that the outgoing tenant exacts a large sum of what is known as "key money "from the incoming tenant. I have listened with sympathy to the statements made at times by Irish Members with regard to the rack-renting injustice experienced in Ireland. But I never yet heard a case from that country which could not be put into the shade by a recital of the miseries of many unhappy Londoners. It is not only London that suffers, for Mr. Rowntree has published a study of life from the working class point of view, and his book describing the state of affairs existing in the Cathedral City of York is from beginning to end an ironical comment upon our claim to Imperial greatness as a people. He tells us that overcrowding and insanitary conditions abound in the slums, that back-to-back houses in which through ventilation is impossible are common, that the water supply is very inadequate and that in some cases the tap which supplies the drinking water is fixed in the wall of the water closet. He finds that more than one-fourth of the entire population of the city of York is housed in property of that description. The rooms are dark and damp, and often there is only one water tap and one closet for a dozen or more tenements. These are not very savoury details, but I think it is well that the House should know the conditions under which these poor people live. I need not labour the matter. Any one who wishes can read for himself Mr. Rowntree's book. When the Prince of Wales returned from his tour round the world, His Royal Highness made a very remarkable speech in the Guildhall, one phrase of which struck me very profoundly. He referred to the affection, goodwill, and cordiality with which the Princess and himself had been everywhere received by all classes, and he added that everywhere they had been struck by "the conscious pride in partnership in Empire" which the people evinced. I would like to know what sort of "conscious pride in partnership in Empire "these poor people, whose condition I have attempted to describe, can feel, and what sort of heritors for Britain's Imperial greatness we are likely to breed under these conditions. The question is, what can the Government do. There are some things I would not ask it to do, because the time of this session is already pretty fully ear-marked. But at the bottom of all this state of things is the question of the cost of urban land. The preposterous cost of such land in London makes it necessary for the London County Council, in order to conduct their housing schemes on business lines, to charge rents which are practically prohibitive to the very poor people for whom they wish to provide the accommodation. In the long run this question of the land will have to be tackled. I cannot, of course, ask the Government to take up a great question like that now, but I do think there are some things it can do. It seems to me that the more wretched the slum-covered property is the more money has to be paid for it. Take the case of the Boundary Street area. Here is an official description of the nature of that area. It speaks of the filthy and verminous lodging houses to be found there. It says that in the building of these houses no mortar was used, but in lieu thereof a curious substance known as "billy-sweet." It is one of the properties of this substance that it never dries. In a majority of instances the houses were so constructed, that the ground floors were from 12 to 18 inches below the street level. No house possessed such a thing as a front door, no repairs were ever done. All this gives some idea of the state of things which caused the death rate in that particular neighbourhood to mount up to over 40 per thousand in 1889, although at the same time the death rate at Hampstead was only 13 per thousand and at St. George's, Hanover Square, 15 per thousand. The First Lord of the Treasury in debate in 1900, said—

"If every slum-owner were hanged at the door of his slum it might be thought a very harsh exercise of the criminal law, and he for one would not weep his eyes out at his destiny."

But nothing so unfortunate ever happened to a slum-owner. On the contrary, in the case of the particular area he was referring to, the owners got the enormous sum of £333,000 as compensation out of the London County Council which expended something like an average of £300 per family in dealing with this area before they began to build at all. Now I come to the things I think the Government might do. First, they might agree to permit municipalities to extend the period for the re-payment of loans. That has been unanimously pressed on the Government by the municipal authorities, and it formed the subject of an admirable Bill introduced last year by an hon. Member opposite. I hope it will again be introduced this session. I should like to point this out, that the periods for the re-payment of loans were not fixed in connection with housing schemes at all, but they were fixed in connection with other municipal affairs in regard to which there is no such asset as there is in the case of housing schemes. This reform has been pressed on the Government by many if not most of their own friends, and it is cordially endorsed by the great bulk of, if not all, the municipalities throughout the country. Another little reform that might be agreed to by the Government is that when a municipality buys a piece of land it should be permitted to take the cost for a period of years out of the Sinking Fund altogether, and let it remain an undiminishing asset against the debt. That is the policy adopted by the Local Government Board, I believe, in respect of sewage farms. Local Authorities are permitted, when they set up a sewage farm, to take at least 75 per cent. of the cost of the land out of the Sinking Fund and put it on one side as an undiminishing asset against the debt. These two little reforms, I understand, from statistics which have been prepared by men best qualified to speak, would enable the local authorities to reduce the rents by at least 6d. per week per room. Another little thing which the Govern- ment might do is in regard to the model clause, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be prepared to assent to an alteration in this clause in Provisional Order Bills granted to public authorities or railway companies so as to enforce the obligations in respect of re-housing. I confess I am a member of a body, the London School Board, which for years absolutely evaded its obligations in this respect. But at the time I was not aware of the existence of those obligations. I do not see that there need be any difficulty in making the model clause more rigid. It provides that a public authority or company should re-house the people when it takes more than nineteen houses. But why stick at nineteen? Considering the lack of proper housing accommodation, I think we might be prepared to go the length of saying that whenever land is compulsorily acquired and houses swept away, an equal number of buildings should be put up. There is one other matter to which I wish to draw attention, and that is one which affects the Board of Trade. I should be very glad if that Department were a little more expeditious in carrying out its obligations, and a little less wrapped up in red tape. I am referring now to the necessity of increased facilities for cheap transit for the working classes. We have the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, which embodies a bargain made between the public and the railway companies, under which the latter obtained certain remissions of passenger duty on condition that they provided a certain number of workmen's trains up till 8 o'clock in the morning. Now, I submit that the Board of Trade has never done its duty in regard to that particular Act. The Royal Commission on housing laid it down specifically that it was for the Board of Trade to take the initiative and to insist upon the railway companies carrying out their part of the bargain. But the Board of Trade have done nothing of the kind; they have always waited until complaints have been made, and taken a long time to make up their minds. As a result very few of the companies have carried out their obligations. There has, too, been the greatest diversity in the policy adopted by the companies themselves. The Great Eastern, for instance, runs 106 workmen's trains daily into its London termini, the Midland run only 5. In the matter of fares too, there is a like diversity of practice. The Great Eastern will run a man 10 miles out and in daily for a sum of 1s. per week, while the London and South Western charge 4s. weekly for the same service. We want another Cheap Trains Act altogether. Eighteen years have elapsed since the present Act was passed, and although at that time 8 o'clock may have been a sufficiently late hour in the morning to stop running their cheaptrains, conditions of life have since greatly changed, and many girls and young people who need to use these trains, do not begin their daily work till 9.30.The last workmen's train on the Midland reaches St. Pancras at 12 minutes past 7, and even on the Great Eastern many unfortunate people, if they are to use half-past five or six o'clock to be at their places of employment at the proper time; consequently, many young people have to hang about the streets in the winter mornings when they might very much better be in bed. So pressing is this evil, that the Rector of Allhallow's, London Wall, and the Rector of St. Catherine's, Fenchurch Street, have opened their churches at half-past six in the mornings—and all honour to them for having done so—to keep these people warm and sheltered until they go to their work. I ask for a new Act which shall connote the social changes of the past eighteen years, in consequence which many people commence their labour at a later hour. I must apologise for having occupied the time of the House so long, but I have only one word more to say. Whenever I have addressed meetings of working men, I have endeavoured to pitch a high conception of the importance, authority and dignity of this Empire. But I cannot help feeling often, when I remember the condition of these people, that it is a bitter mockery for me to talk about the transcendental greatness of the Empire to people living under conditions, in the heart of the Empire—the homeland of the Empire—such as these people do. I feel frequently the bitter irony of the situation, and I wonder at the unconcern of Ministers, upon whose lips, in public, are ever flamboyant references to the greatness of the Empire and its responsibilities. If a man lives in Park Lane, and has at his caprice, between his thumb and the pressure of an electric button, every- thing that luxury and comfort could desire, it is a very simple thing for him to lay his hand upon his heart and say to himself, "Behold, I am a member of a great Empire. "But I want to see some of the attributes of Imperialism around the condition of these poor people, so that they, too, can claim that they are members of a great Empire. I want this problem touched with the hand of Imperialism, as well as these other problems upon which we lavish so much care. If we are to make our people love their country, as I desire they should, we must make their country lovely, and we must learn, above all, that true Imperalism begins at home. I beg to move.

I rise to second the Amendment. I think my hon. friend has convinced the House of the great urgency of this question, but I should like to call attention to what has been said by others whose words ought to carry great weight in this House and in the country. Upon the last occasion when His Majesty received the members of the London County Council he specially asked them not to slacken their efforts with reference to this question, "in which he had always taken the deepest possible interest." The Prime Minister said that "it ought to occupy our attention more than any other subject." And the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of it as "the all-important Housing question." The President of the Local Government Board said it was "probably more pressing and important than most of the social questions of the day." In spite of this concensus of opinion, we have no reference to the question in the King's Speech, while, moreover, we have the question of education placed in the forefront. In my humble opinion, the healthy existence of the individual is of much greater importance than his mental culture. It is said that you cannot reason with a hungry man. I think it is equally true that you cannot teach much to a hungry child, and the children who dwell in these homes are invariably hungry children, as this question is closely bound up with the question of wages. This is not only a social question, but it is a great national, and at the same time, a very complex problem. Two- thirds of the entire population of this island dwell in urban homes. More than one-eighth of the population live in London alone, and of that population, as many as 800,000 dwell in unsanitary homes, nearly 200,000 of them living in one-roomed homes. It has been shown by the greatest authority on this question that, whether in town or country, the death rate increases in exact proportion to the density of the population. I have said it is a national question. Between 1881 and 1891 the Germans, Poles, and Russians who entered this country, most of whom were practically pauper immigrants, increased from 60,000 to 95,000, and I have no hesitation in saying that the rate of increase has been kept up. In London—and it is with the London aspect of the question I am mainly concerned—we have also to deal with the influx from the country. The cause of the influx is that no attempt has been made to ameliorate the conditions under which the rural population live. We have in an adjacent country an illustration of what can be done by the better administration of the land laws. In Denmark they have been able to bring about an exodus from the towns to the country, with the result that Denmark exports annually to this country 100,000,000 cwts. of butter, 100,000,000 cwts. of bacon, and 200,000,000 eggs. Again, at the present moment, we have a great scheme on foot for the cure of consumption and tubercular disease. What is acknowledged by the highest medical authorities to be the only cure? Fresh air. What do we do? We draw people towards the towns, where, owing to the conditions under which they live, they develop consumption or tubercular disease, and we spend vast sums of money, partly out of rates, partly out of taxes, and partly out of charitable funds, to draft these people back to the country, there, alas, to die. This does not touch London alone; it is almost equally important in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other great centres; but it is emphasised in London more than elsewhere. My hon. friend gave some thrilling details with regard to Spitalfields, where there is a population of 330 to the acre, as compared with an average of 57 for London as a whole. But he omitted to state that, according to the Rector of Spitalfields, there were in that district no fewer than 1,100 homeless children who went to no school at all. Yet we have education placed in the fore front in preference to the housing question. These unfortunate people are inefficients, so to speak, by birth or by degradation, and, as a result, they go to swell the numbers in the workhouses, or, more frequently I fear, in the cemeteries of this country. My hon. friend alluded to the Boundary Street area, and the immense cost it had been to the public body which attempted to deal with it. The reason that area cost so much to clear was that special trade interests had to be dealt with. If the various public bodies had the powers they have repeatedly demanded, and were backed up by the Government so that they might have an opportunity of carrying out the various schemes they have in hand, many areas, not so bad perhaps, but of the same type as the Boundary Street area, could be successfully dealt with at a very much lower cost. Another aspect of the question with which I am very familiar is the way in which the sweeping away of these areas affects not the poorest of the poor, but the well-to-do mechanic and the badly paid clerk. When these areas are cleared, the persons who originally inhabited them are pushed into the surrounding districts, with the result that the rents there are raised. During the last fifteen years I have visited thousands of these men in their homes, and I know, as a positive fact, that whereas it was possible, twelve or fifteen years ago, to obtain with comparative case houses in the centre of South London, the rents have now increased to such an extent that it is almost impossible for a respectable working man to obtain house-room for less than about 3s. per room per week. In other words, he pays from one fifth to one third of his entire income to obtain decent house-room for his family. I hope we shall not be told that this is an academic discussion. It is nothing of the kind. It is a practical and an urgent question, which cannot be pushed aside, like that of old age pensions, with the statement that it is beyond the power of Ministers to deal with a question of such magnitude. The question has been dealt with in other countries and by certain communities, of which I will quote one. In the town of Leicester the population increases at the rate of 10,000 a year, but, owing to a proper system of communication between the suburbs and the centre, coupled with other measures, overcrowding is not so bad as in many other centres. What remedies do I propose? I would suggest, in the first place, that something should be done to enforce the law in rural districts, and I venture to suggest that to the hand of a Ministry wishing to deal with this question in London there is ready the possibility of dealing with it by means of the taxation of ground-rents. Under this head there is in London an annual increase of £300,000 which is practically unearned increment, and I say that a large proportion of that ought to go back to the community. Again, I am greatly concerned with regard to this question because I have long taken an interest in the question of a "living wage. "I ask the Government to stand by their pledges, and also to stand by the pledges of former Governments. The question of the housing of the poor is closely connected with this question of wages. The Government are not even giving to those they employ the current rate of wages in the locality. They are willing to listen to all that is said about this desperate condition of things in consequence of the bad housing of the poor, and yet we find them increasing this state of things by failing to carry out the resolution of this House in regard to the rate of wages which was passed in 1891. The hon. Member who introduced the resolution will be interested to know that recently the members of the leather trade have stated that the Government has given contracts for military accoutrements, and placed them at such a low figure, that many London firms have been obliged to dismiss their men and import foreign labour at sweating wages, in order to carry out the Government contracts. That state of things ought not to exist. Imperialism has been alluded to, and I have never denied that I am a warm Imperialist; but the honest British workmen who have been earning honest wages, and getting only the standard rate when a great war is on, which bears directly upon Imperialism—when he finds himself displaced and reduced to beggary, and unable to house his family, by the employment of foreigners, in the teeth of a resolution of this House to the contrary, I can quite understand that his Imperial- ism begins to slacken off. I hope that I may have some assurance from the Government that inquiries will be made into this particular trade. I now come to another point, in which I take a special interest. I believe, in company with the First Lord of the Treasury, that one of the solutions of this question is cheaper means of transit. I introduced last year a Bill for the cheapening of transit by railway. When this question was under discussion, the First Lord of the Treasury emphatically stated that in his view, the principal solution of the question was improved means of locomotion, and in a letter which the right hon. Gentleman published, he pointed out a means by which this could be done. But has any attempt been made to carry it out? Local Authorities have not been given the power to run these great causeways to outlying districts, and no attempt has been made to deal with factories in certain areas. When new factories are started in London areas, they are invariably started in those districts where labour is cheap, and where people live under the worst possible housing conditions, and this only intensifies the evil. We have in London at the present time an epidemic of smallpox, and where do we find that the largest number of cases come from? Why, from those very districts where the housing question has been neglected. There is another illustration which will come home to many and that is the case of the Boer concentration camps. We find that these Boer people when dwelling in their natural state on the veldt were practically free from disease. Now we find complaints made that the Government has not made these camps as healthy as the open veldt, and when these people were got together in large numbers disease was rife. The same thing takes place here in London, where we draw people from the country into the most crowded centres, thereby intensifying the evil. I observe that there is an hon. member present who takes a great interest in the temperance question, and this subject of housing has a very strong bearing upon the temperance question, and it is in a great measure the cause of intemperance. Where do we find the largest amount of drink consumed and the greatest amount of intemperance? Why, in those districts where people have to live under bad hous- ing conditions, and where they fly to drink because they have no other excitement of any kind. I do hope that we shall not have a Royal Commission upon this question, for we had one some sixteen years ago. Since the year 1851 we have had seven Bills upon this subject and one Royal Commission, and, taking London as a whole, the state of affairs now is far worse than it was in 1851. It may be said that all these matters cannot be dealt with now, and I am well aware that it is difficult to deal with a great and complex question such as this. Perhaps I might venture to suggest that there is also a means of attaining this, and that means is devolution. By granting certain powers to local bodies and by giving them everyassistance, I believe that much can be done in the shape of the bettor housing of the working classes, and I venture to say with my hon. friend who moved this Amendment that if this question is not tackled in some shape or form things may go on smoothly for a while and for many years; but if by any misfortune the epidemic raging in London were to increase, and if, in conjunction with this we were to have a bad state of trade, and thousands of children were dying throughout the metropolitan area of a foul disease with poverty staring the population in the face, I say the state of affairs would be far worse. I was very much struck with a statement made to me the other day to the effect that if the present state of things continued, as soon as we had bad times in trade, he felt confident that those who lived in the lowest parts of London would smash tradesmen's windows and create a general riot. What I am speaking of occurred not very many years ago and it might occur again, and if it does occur again the result will be much more disastrous than it has ever been before.

No one will dispute for a single moment the importance of the question that has been raised by the hon. Member. But notwithstanding this fact, I should not have intervened in this debate, but for the references which have been made to myself by the hon. Member opposite, in the course of his observations. Indeed, I am placed somewhat at a disadvantage in discussing this question, because—although it is my own fault no doubt—it is a fact that I was not aware that the hon. Member opposite had secured the adjournment; and consequently I am not in a position to furnish him with the details in reply to some of the statements he made in the course of his speech, and which it would not have been difficult to deal with. The hon. Member blames the Government, because in this matter they have not proceeded step by step in the way that they might have done in dealing with a very important and crucial question, and he supports the allegation by referring to the Bill of 1899 which was introduced and carried into law under the auspices of my right hon. friend. I do not propose to dwell upon the part of the speech of the hon. Member, for, of all men of my acquaintance in this world, I know of no one more capable of taking care of himself than my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies, and I shall leave him to make any defence of the Bill which he may think necessary. Then he referred to the humble individual who has now the honour of addressing the House, and complained of the Act of 1891, which he said was also practically an abortion. I do not follow the hon. Member in this, nor do I perceive that he was able to say much in support of the charge, and indeed it would be rather difficult for him to do so. What are the facts with regard to the Act of 1891, and the consequences which followed almost immediately upon it? As a matter of fact the Bill had hardly become law when the London County Council took measures for proceeding with the two largest schemes that they have ever attempted hitherto to carry out for the purpose of improving the dwellings of the working classes directly under the Act, and directly as a consequence of the Act which the hon. Member opposite, without one word in support of his charge has been pleased to describe to the House this afternoon as practically an abortion. I am not in a position to supply the House with the particulars of these two great schemes, which I believe are undoubtedly the largest advance hitherto made in dealing with this question of the housing of the working classes. Of course I am well aware that after all it may only be a drop in the ocean, and that there remains an immense deal to be done. When the Bill was passed it was denounced by people who bad never studied the question, as one of the most futile and ridiculous measures ever submitted to the House. We heard a great deal in those days about Amendments which were going to be moved by hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite, but as the debates proceeded, and when they began to learn how enormous and wide spread were the powers possessed by the local authorities already, and how little in addition there was that could be done by legislation, we heard no more about these comprehensive Amendments; and not one was proposed from either side of the House. An hon. friend of mine has kindly handed me the particulars of one of those schemes, which immediately followed upon the passing of the Act. In Tottenham 250 acres were purchased to house 40,000 people. That scheme was proposed and agreed to, like the other that I have referred to, immediately after the passing of the Act, and they are both of them, I understand, rapidly proceeding under this abortive Act. And when the hon. Member so severely criticises the Government what has he got to propose himself? I have listened to all he had to say and he had to fall back upon the extension of the time for the repayment of loans. I have given attention to that question, and come to the conclusion that the objections to be urged against it far outweigh any advantage to be gained. You cannot limit the extension of the principle to loans for the housing of the working classes. [An Hon. Member: Why not?] You would have had demands for every conceivable purpose, for which loans are wanted by Local Authorities, and it would be extremely difficult to refuse them. But that is the smallest objection. There is another infinitely greater. Suppose you departed from this principle, which has been so long in practice, it would have done practically nothing in the way of assisting the housing of the working classes. The proposed extension of loans is a species of cheap generosity at the expense of posterity which, I know, is very attractive to many hon. gentlemen, but its effect would be trifling, and I, at all events, adhere to the view I expressed formerly. The hon. Member pointed out that the necessary complement of the Bill passed at that time was that there should be prompt and cheap facilities of transport, in order to enable the dwellers in the new buildings to be conveyed quickly from their homes to their work, and from their work to their homes. That is perfectly true—the Act is incomplete in a material point without it, and on the third reading of the bill I gave a promise on behalf of my then colleagues in the Government that that should be done. It was to be done by giving greater facilities for the creation of tramways in London and that has a very important bearing on the subject, because unlike other local authorities in the country, the County Council of London are not the road authority. The consequence is that whenever a new tramway is desired in any part of London, a bill on the subject cannot be even introduced unless the consent of all the other local authorities whose territory it may pass through has been already obtained. That has led to abuses of every sort and kind, and, personally, I think the time has come when the question ought to be dealt with. It is very easy to deal with it because the law on the subject is laid down by the standing orders in this and the other House of Parliament. At the time I speak of the question was very carefully considered, and after a conference with the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses we were agreed that a very trifling alteration in the Standing Orders could be made to give effect to this purpose, and although the undertaking given at that time, and which would have been carried out then but for the period of the session, has apparently escaped the memory of the Government, I hope it may still be done—after all, what the Government have to do is not so much to introduce fresh legislation as to urge upon the local authorities the more effective administration of the powers they already possess. If there are further facilities wanted—I am not aware of them—give to them by all means anything that is reasonable and can properly be demanded, and then encourage and stimulate them to use them to the best of their ability. It is in that direction I expect that any real progress will be made on this question. The hon. Member said that this was not an academic debate; but in one sense it is. What is the work of the session we have before us already? When the address is over we are to deal with the rules of procedure. This is not so much a question for the Government, but one which concerns every individual member of the House of Commons. If we are to have a change in the rules of procedure—and there are great changes which ought to be made—I should be very sorry to forecast when the discussion will come to an end. Will they conclude before Easter? I shall be agreeably surprised if they do—and after the Easter recess there will be all sorts of questions to follow. There will be the Coronation and all it involves. Shortly afterwards we come to Whitsuntide, and what is there besides, that must be done? There is the question of the Budget, and I fancy that will not be a particularly simple matter. Then we have the Education Bill and how much time will be left for that great measure after all this has been done? I venture to think, although this is a question which may very properly be discussed in the House of Commons, and with regard to which there is no monopoly on either side in the desire to see a great improvement in the condition of the working classes, yet I do not believe it is possible for the House of Commons to deal with that question by any considerable measure during the present session.

said that there was no question which the social reformer could approach that was of more interest than that before the House. This was a question which wanted to be settled. Unless the home was sound the whole national life was unsound; and anything which affected the homes of the people ought to be pressing indeed on the representatives of the people. The mover of the Amendment had relieved them of nearly all necessity of pressing on the House the very terrible evils that existed in London and other great towns from inadequate housing. They were nearly all aware of the terrible overcrowding and of the evils which resulted from it in the life of our great cities. The excuse offered for the overcrowding was that it was quite impossible for the people to obtain houses at a less rent than was charged, and it was constantly pointed out to them when the local authorities attempted to build houses for the working classes they were unable to supply them at any less rent than that charged by the owners of the slums. It was a well known fact that those who lived in good houses paid actually less per room than those who lived in the worst and dirtiest slums of London. He knew something of this question. He had been a guardian of the poor in one of the worst and poorest districts of London, and had been in constant touch with the inhabitants of a district with a population of 24,000. He was acquainted with every street and nearly every inhabitant in the area, and he knew that in practice the poor paid more per room in rent than the rich. He himself had lived in two houses since he came to London. One was at Clapham Common which had comfortable rooms, good air, with a garden at the back; and he actually paid less per room than the population in a chronic state of poverty. He now lived in a house facing the river, in Grovsenor Road, and there also he paid less per room than the poor of the slums. But taking the cubic space of his own house, compared with the average size of the room in the poor districts, the rent was only one half. If he could get cubic space at half the rent of that demanded and paid in the poorest districts, surely some provision ought to be made by which the poor should pay less rent than at the present moment. There was no doubt that the rents of working men's houses were very extortionate because there was no competition. If investigations were made, it would be found that within two miles of Charing Cross not a dozen workmen's houses could be rented; and if any decent working man, from loss of work or other cause, had to move, he had to begin at the very bottom before he could get another place. In the worst slums the charge was from 20 to 25 per cent. higher for a dwelling than for a better class of houses in the immediate neighbourhood. This was an important question from many points of view. One reason why the slums were bad was that the houses were at the far end of the leases. He knew one street which was known to be the worst in London—he was glad to say it was coming down—where all the property was at the far end of the leases. That property was of course neglected and rack rented because the property would soon be handed over to the ground landlord. Another aspect of the question was well worthy of consideration, namely, the effect of the bad housing of the poor on trade competition. We were threatened with foreign competition. He had been spending six months in America investigating the question. He was not afraid of German competition. Germany dealt mostly in rubbish, and they couidhave that trade. Moreover he was not afraid of the competition of any nation which had conscription. But he found that, wherever any employer of labour was able to house his own workpeople comfortably, he could compete successfully against any manufacturer who depended upon casual dwellings for his workmen. There was the case of Mr Lever, the soap manufacturer, who had spent a quarter of a million for the benefit of his workmen, The result was not only success in his own business, but that he had been able to absorb two of his greatest competitors. The same was the case with the Messrs. Cadbury, the chocolate manufacturers, who could by the same methods or means meet all foreign competition. The whole question of competition with America rested on the improvement of the working people. There were in Regent Street seven shops paying high rents, selling goods manufactured in America and imported into this country, and with great success. He happened to know the village in Connecticut where some of these goods—boots and shoes—were made, and the condition of the workpeople there, compared with that of the same class of people in London and the Midlands, was as heaven to hell. The workmen were paid £3 a week, and the machines were worked at 25 per cent. higher speed than in Northamptonshire. One reason why they were able to compete was because the American workman demanded a high standard of living and comfort, and, getting that, he was able to earn the necessary money to pay for it. And, as the one acted and reacted on the other; so also they turned out better and cheaper goods: In that village in Connecticut to which he had referred every workman had his house of six rooms, with a quarter of an acre of garden, and a beautiful recreation and literary institute was provided. But there was not a single liquor shop in the village. Lately he had visited a small shoe-making town in the Midlands of England of about the same size as that in Connecticut, and he found there no fewer than twenty-six public houses. The principle manufacturer told him that £60,000 of the workmen's money in that village went into these liquor shops. Now in America that £60,000 would have gone into the homes of the workpeople—which made all the difference in the world. This question of housing was complicated with that of the drunkenness of the people who lived in the slums. The seconder of the Amendment said that drink alone made them content to live in the slums. He (Mr. Caine) maintained that it was drunkenness that took these people into the slums, although he admitted the force of the argument that the one acted and re-acted on the other. In a district in London in which he was interested there was a Nonconformist church, and in that church there were 500 families, only ten of which had houses to themselves. They were all teetotallers, but except these ten none had a home of more than two rooms, the average rent of which was 7/- a week, or 3/6 for one room The wages of these sober, steady, working men was on the average 21/- a week, and when 7/- had been paid for rent there was only 14/- left for the family to live upon, unless the wife and children also earned money. This question of a living wage was a very large one. He supposed that, there were millions of people in this country who did not get a living wage. Irregularity of employment was a great curse. In Liverpool, which he knew well, there were from 35,000 to 40,000 people who did not know, when they had finished one day's work, where they would get the next day's work. The labourers and porters who worked on the great American liners were often three, four, or five days in idleness before they got their turn again. These men, mostly uneducated, had no place to go to except the public house, where they spent the greater part of the money earned when in work, the wife only getting the small amount left. Inquiry had shown that out of every 100 children born in the district of Liverpool where these men lived, 50 died before they were 12 months old, a death-rate with which that of the Concentrated Camps was hardly comparable. He knew an area of a quarter of a mile square in London, where there were 38 liquor shops, and these did a better trade than all the other shops together. It was a sad fact that the best house; in the Metropolis in which poor people lived were the workhouses, where they were well fed and well housed. In face of all the contentiously causes of this bad housing of the poor, it is with wonder that there should be a round million of paupers in the United Kingdom. A great deal had been done by social effort and social example, and a great deal might be done by legislation. He did not intend to dictate to the Local Government Board the measures they should take, but he would press on them the necessity for doing something, and also the absolute futility of a Royal Commission, for a Royal Commission could not obtain any information beyond that which was already in the possession of the Local Government Board. He had been on Royal Commissions himself, and he had never known one that brought out anything that was not known previously. He hoped that the difficulty would be grappled with energy and determination, and he trusted that the Department would stimulate the Government to take adequate action.

said he desired to say a few words on the Amendment as he had the adventtage of being in communication with the Local Government Board with regard to the feeling which existed in large municipal boroughs on the subject. He would wish to take the opportunity of saying that the President of the Local Government Board had given in conference a very ready ear to the protests and suggestions which had been made to him, and he was quite sure that his right hon. friend realized the great importance of the subject and that he had given indications of a desire to meet as far as he could by administration, and he hoped also by legislation, the views of those who in municipalities and elsewhere had to apply the law. There was need, in the opinion of those men, for some measure which would remove the difficulties and the obstacles which at present barred the way to the accomplishment of the intentions of Parliament. After the speeches which had been delivered, he did not intend to dwell on the extent of the evil of overcrowding, and he quite agreed with what the hon. Member for the Camborne Division had said, that even commercially it was desirable to make the homes of the poor as comfortable and healthy as possible. He also wished to acknowledge that in the King's Speech there was a very wise recognition of the importance of Local Government. A Bill had been promised for improving the water supply of London, and he agreed with his hon. friend, who said that pure water was a very material element in the healthfulness of the home. Whatever else might be accomplished, he hoped that, at any rate, they should have a public authority dealing with the water supply of London, and that the temptation would be removed from private undertakings to prefer dividends to disease and death in the ranks of the people. Then, again, the promise of a Bill for the improvement of valuation should be acknowledged. It would be a great step in the improvement of Local Government, from the point of view of finance, to have an accurate assessment, both absolutely and comparatively, established, and if his right hon. friend succeeded, he would have accomplished an improvement which had been attempted for fifty years, which had been proposed in eight of the ten Bills which, had been examined by Commissions and Committees, but which had not yet been carried out. The recent Royal Commission had indicated a very open way to a great reform, and he was very glad his right hon. friend had rapidly seized the opportunity by the Bill he proposed to introduce. There was no greater obstacle to improved Local Government than the existence of the provisions of the Borough Funds Act which enabled one dissentient rate-payer to stop a great public improvement, and which prevented a part of a Bill being adopted unless the whole were accepted. These were great impediments to public undertakings, and also the cause of great cost and delay, and he hoped that the Bill which had been presented to the House several times, which had passed the other House, and which had been supported by the Government, would be passed, and that the Government would themselves do what private Members had attempted to do in vain. With reference to the Amendment, he would remind his right hon. friend of the deputation—representative of all parts of the Kingdom—which waited upon him, and which consisted of the Mayors and the very men who had worked the Acts for the housing of the people. It included the Mayor of Plymouth, the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Great City of Liverpool, and the Mayor of Hull, in which town his right hon. friend had the opportunity of seeing not only what was being done, but also the obstacles and impediments which hindered the operations of the Acts. What was the effect on the present condition of affairs? Parliament intended by those Acts to help the poorer classes, not as a matter of class legislation, because facilities for better housing and sanitation were in the interests of the whole community. Therefore, if those facilities were obstructed, it was the community and not a particular class that suffered. It was not merely the personal inconvenience and danger to the class that was overcrowded that was concerned. The whole of a great city ran a risk from the part that was over-crowded. The Mayor of Plymouth informed has right hon. friend, that they could not serve the class intended to be served because they were compelled to charge rents which could only be paid by the better-class artizans, and that the very poor, whom Parliament had contemplated in passing the Acts, could not be served at all. The Local Authorities felt that they must either charge unduly low rents to the poor, and thereby inflict a tax, to a very serious extent, upon the other part of the community, or else charge rents which would repay the outlay at reasonable interest, in which case they could not let to the class intended by the Acts. The result was a fiasco from almost every point of view. The members of the deputation gave records of street after street, and they knew the law and how far they could apply it on economic lines. He hoped then that there would be at least a Borough Funds Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the length of the term of loans. The Department itself could make some improvement in that respect without legislation at all. At present the Department granted loans for a term of 40 years, but the Act itself provided for 60 years. Why did not the Department at least carry out the feeling which animated Parliament when it decided that the maximum term should be 60 years? It was said that the term was merely a factor, and that if it were increased it would not solve the question. Of course, it would not. There were many other difficulties and obstacles, but if the rents of small tenements were reduced by even a proportionate fraction, a part of the present difficulty would be reduced. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to say that it would make no practical difference. He preferred the testimony of the very men who dealt in those questions in their own localities, and who had to erect the buildings and to negotiate with the Department the terms of loans. When they spoke with one voice their views were worth listening to. If his right hon. friend took the same stand as his predecessor, and said he was a "trustee for posterity," he would remind him that although posterity might have to pay some proportion of the cost of these works, yet posterity got a benefit in the form of better health, and they ought to pay for it. He would invite his right hon. friend to appoint a Select Committee to take evidence. If his right hon. friend held the official view that the term was sufficiently long, in other words, that the life of the works would not admit of a longer term, he would remind his right hon. friend that he himself had seen many buildings which were ample for 60 years. Let him, however, appoint a Select Committee and they would accept its decision. But let them not have such continual wrangling as to whether there was room for lengthening the term or not. He hoped that would be the course which his right hon. friend would adopt. Again, if the land on which the buildings were erected was left as a permanent asset, and no man allowed to remove an acre of land, however disposed, and he ventured to assert that there would be very few cases of depreciation or any material loss. He would strongly urge that the term for land should be 100 years, and that if the term for buildings could not be 100 years, it should be at least the 60 years which was asked for by the repreentatives of municipalities. There was a further point, which though only a small factor went to the solution of the whole problem. There was first an enquiry as to the scheme and then one as to the loan, which meant additional cost and additional delay. It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Sleaford that, in the case of the Housing of the Working Classes, if the Government granted what they would have to grant there might be something in it, but it was well known that terms were more favourable in the case of other houses; the exception was made in this case because of the danger of overcrowding. The law of Prussia made a distinct exception in favour of the Housing of the Working Classes, and, in a city like Dusseldorf and in other parts of Germany advances were made for this purpose with great benefit for the term of 100 years. He could not, having regard to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, give a vote upon what would really be a Motion of no confidence, but he urged that the best way for the Government to gain the confidence of the people in this matter would be for them to listen to what had been said on both sides of the House, and that it was their duty to get evidence before some public tribunal, and then make rules which would enable the Local Authorities to do their duty.

desired to say a few words from the rural point of view, as he could do so as well upon this as upon the Amendment which stood in his name a little further down on the Paper. It was quite true that in the country towns insanitary areas and overcrowding were not so great as in large towns, but at the same time there were great hardship, suffering, and physical deterioration in rural districts. From all sides there was the complaint as to the depopulation of country districts, and it had been pointed out what a serious effect that was having upon our national life. It was indeed a question of the most vital interest to both town and country. The condition of the country districts led to the condition of the town populations being made still more intolerable, and the depopulation of the country was certain to go on until some means was arrived at to make it worth the while of the agricultural labourer to stay upon the land. The condition of the housing accommodation was one of the reasons of the people not remaining on the land, where they were badly wanted, and migrating to the towns, where they were not wanted at all. The facts were well-known, reports had been furnished as to the condition of the rural districts, and although it might be that there were parts of the country where there was no particular need for better accommodation—and there were some estates where the owner took great pride in maintaining the dwellings on his estate—there were many places where the housing accommodation was insufficient in quantity and miserably so in quality. That arose from many causes, one of which perhaps was that the Medical Officers of Health throughout the country were local medical practitioners. There was a law which had recently been amended which enabled the rural sanitary authorities, the new District Councils, to build, under certain sanction, new cottages when required, but the unfortunate thing about that was that it was so exceedingly difficult to make use of that Act. Building under the new Act was not impossible, but extremely difficult, and in point of fact, since 1889, there had been only two cases in which the Local Authorities had succeeded in surmounting all the difficulties, and building under the Act. In both cases there had been an enormous outlay both in time and money, much more than the Local Authorities ought to have incurred in erecting cottages; but ultimately there was a good result, because although they were not able to build cottages to let at a rental which would enable the labourers to live in them, they put up cottages which did come into competition with the others in the neighbourhood; as those cottages which the better class had inhabited and vacated for the new, came in their turn into competition, and their owners were enabled to let them at ordinary rentals, allowing the labourers to obtain accommodation which they otherwise would not have had at all. What was wanted was an alteration in the law to enable the Local Authorities to have a good chance of building. It might be said that in the rural districts the person who got the greatest benefit out of good cottage accommodation was the landlord himself. Primarily that would be the case, as if there were no house accommodation he could not let his land, whereas if there were plenty of cottages, and good cottages, he would be able to let his estate to far better advantage; but unfortunately, although it was directly to the interest of the landowner to build good cottages, and although a good many landlords undoubtedly did make good cottage provision on their estates, the country was full of landlords who were not in a position to build cottages. The old generation of landlords, with plenty of money, who lived on their estates, had largely passed away, and the present landowner had to look closely into facts before he attempted to build, and when he found the return for his building was only 2½ per cent. he reluctantly decided to go on with insufficient cottage accommodation. The only other class which had any interest in keeping up and housing the population in the rural districts was the rural sanitary authority, who had a distinct pecuniary interest in the matter because a good supply of labour meant better rentals for the land and a higher rateable value, so that it made everything better. The difficulty was that Parliament in its wisdom had not regarded the District Council as being a sufficiently responsible body to entrust with building operations. In his opinion, it was a body which could be reasonably trusted with any reasonable expenditure for that purpose. Although the recent Act had stripped away some portion of the red tape, there was still a good deal enveloping this subject. The District Council had now to go to the County Council and get its leave, which meant delay, expense, and difficulty, and sometimes definite refusal by a Local Authority which did not understand the subject so well as that which made the application. He thought the Local Government Board should make the necessary inquiry. That body had to make an inquiry in the ordinary course, because that was the Board that had the lending of the money, or who got it lent; it was necessary that they should inquire into the value of their security, and it would save time if they also inquired into the reasonableness of the scheme. It might be quite proper that one superior Authority should overlook the District Council, but there should not be two, because that meant delay, expense, and very often the abandonment of schemes which otherwise would be undertaken. In the majority of cases, the District Council would, he believed, be perfectly willing to undertake what it believed to be for the benefit of the district, if only it saw its way fairly clear, but under existing circumstances the Council knew that there would be delay, struggles, and expense connected with the scheme, and that ultimately, if they did build, there would be Local Government Board advice, resulting in the building of cottages at a cost nearly half as much again as it should be. He knew that suitable cottages could be built for £125 a piece, because he himself had had some erected. It was perfectly true that at the present time a little more might have to be paid, but, after a conversation with the builder, he had reason to believe that he could get similar cottages built now in the same neighbourhood at a 10 per cent. increase on that price. Even then the figure would not be anywhere near the extravagant prices paid by unfortunate District Councils which had undertaken building schemes. But, whether the cottages were to be cheap or expensive, the District Council was quite competent to consider the question. Not only was the Council a competent, but it was a very good authority, being composed of men who were not accustomed to pay lavishly for things, and who, as a general rule, knew the prices ruling in the neighbourhood. It was not desirable, but very much the reverse, to have any Court of Appeal over the District Council, other than the Local Government Board. Probably the House would be told, as usual, that the Local Government Board already had a great deal too much to do. Undoubtedly it was a very hard-worked Department, and of recent years had become infinitely more important than it was before supposed to be. But if the work was too much it was always possible to increase the size of the Department. Additionally, most excellent people could be engaged, and, such was his thorough belief in the right hon. Gentleman, that he knew that, if he had satisfactory subordinates, the President of the Department would perform the supervisory work with the greatest ability, no matter how wide might be the area he had to supervise. At any rate, he asked that the Department should undertake a little more than at present, and that its inquires should not be limited to the question of the loan, but that it should include the whole subject of whether the erection of the cottages was necessary, prudent, and desirable, and possibly whether anybody else was likely to build them. Anything more cruel than the present system of holding inquiries could scarcely be imagined. County Councils were not particularly anxious to take the responsibility of recommending the erection of cottages which might turn out unprofitable; and they jumped only too eagerly at any remote chance of an individual investing his money. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, during the session, so amend the existing law as to enable the District Council to go straight to the Local Government Board instead of to the County Council. As to the length of time for which a loan should be granted, surely it would be admitted that a well-built cottage would last more than 40 years. He knew of many that had been built 100 years, and were still in very decent condition. If these extra burdens were thrown upon the Local Authorities by the Local Government Board regulations, an extension of the period of repayment was only reasonable. While it was not desirable to load posterity with debt, yet there should not be handed over, absolutely free of expense, a very large asset for which the present ratepayers had paid in advance. The happy mean should be struck between the two extremes. Forty years was not an adequate period; sixty might be, but seventy was really nearer the mark. He hoped the division to be taken would be of a sufficiently satisfactory character to induce the President of the Local Government Board seriously to consider the question.

I am glad that an Amendment has been proposed by which we can have a debate upon this most important question, but, at the same time, I have no intention of supporting that Amendment if it is pressed to a division; in the first place, because I am not in favour of being the means, however humble, of making possible the substitution of any body of Gentlemen from the other side of the House for the present Government, and secondly, because the King's Speech gives us an ample programme, and one which the Government will find it difficult to carry out in its entirety. Even if effect is given only to that portion relating to Procedure and Education, the Government will have done a great deal for the benefit of the country, and therefore I think it would be un- reasonable to ask them to bring forward any large and comprehensive scheme dealing with the housing question. But while I say that, I yet have hopes that in the course of the session there may be introduced and passed a measure extending from 60 to 100 years the period for the redemption of debt. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford Division that this is a purely academic question, not within the range of practical polities. It is peculiar with what lethargy the subject seems to be regarded in this House, as compared with the extreme interest—I might almost say excitement—with which it is considered by large numbers of people outside. Whilst not for a moment posing as a financial export, I am prepared to admit that in extending the repayment period from 60 to 100 years there is a slight infringement of what may be regarded as ancient economic principle. All I say about it is that if there is a slight risk, the gravity of the problem fully warrants that risk being taken. But the risk, if any, is very small indeed. It must not be assumed that this extension will impose any additional cost on posterity. It simply means that there will be a liability on the ratapayers for an extended period, because very careful provision is being made by public authorities. I speak particularly of the London County Council, with which I am connected, who provide in all their building operations that no buildings shall be erected or commenced without first due care being taken that the rents in every way cover all the outgoings, in which out-goings is included the sinking fund for the buildings and the land. So that the risk merely means a liability, and will not, or need not, involve any cost to the rate-payers of the future. The County Council and the public authorities in dealing with this housing problem find greater difficulty from day to day in complying with this regulation. I think every Member of this House will agree with me that it is important at all costs to maintain the principle that these buildings should be self-supporting, but there is grave danger that, unless some relief be given, in the future public pressure will become so strong that it will be impossible to maintain this principle. It is far more important that you should run this slight risk and give this help rather than run the risk of the greater danger of an economic fallacy being introduced such has I have indicated. My right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford says—what is the good of doing all this if you are going to gain nothing by it? As a matter off act it is a considerable gain. We are dealing with small tenants, and, of course, the sums are of a small character. But small though these sums may seem, they are of immense importance to those who have to pay them. You may look at this from two ways: (1) The position in which the authority will be placed with regard to the capital at their disposal, or (2) from the point of view of having to erect those houses at a lower rate. This matter has been carefully calculated by the officials of the London County Council, and they feel sure that if this extension was given, and the land was allowed to be a permanent asset, there would be an increase of the capital sum at the disposal of the County Council for the erection of dwellings of 16 per cent., which is a very considerable increase indeed. I have been working for some years upon this question, and I have no doubt my right hon. friend will endorse what I say when I speak of the immense difficulty the London County Council has had in arranging plans for buildings which would comply with the regulations under the present system. If you give this extension you will give a great help to the County Council, which will enable them to devote a large capital sum for the erection of these dwellings. Then the difficulty arises with regard to the rents. We have had speeches this afternoon showing how, in this vast Metropolis, many of the poor people are totally incapable of paying the rents now being asked in different parts of London. I believe the lowest rental is something like 6s. per week, but every hon. Member knows that there are many persons who will find it totally impossible to pay that sum of money. It is generally computed that a man can only pay one-fifth of his income in rent, and it will be found that upon that basis only men earning the high rate of wages of 30s. can pay such a rent. We want to get comfortable houses, with good sanitary arrangements, that will come within the means of a man who is earning a much lower wage than 30s. a week. If this extension is given it will be possible for the County Council, having erected their dwellings, to place those buildings upon the market at a lower rate than what they have hitherto been obliged to ask. It has been calculated, and we are assured, that with this extension, dwellings can be let at a lower rent to the amount of from 6d. to 10d. a week, and this would be a very considerable help to the artizans in this city, who are earning the lower rates of wages. I, therefore, sincerely hope that my right hon. friend and the Government will be able to see their way to pass some small measure this session, for I feel certain that by so doing they will be conferring a great boon upon the working classes in our cities. There are several other points, which, if the House will allow me, I should like to touch upon. I have already stated that I do not consider we should be justified in voting for the Amendment brought forward upon this occasion, because there is no comprehensive scheme before the House of Commons or before the country. It is impossible to bring forward any great dramatic scheme of legislation upon this subject in this country. What can be done is to bring forward a collection—a very considerable collection—of small amendments to existing Acts of Parliament. I hardly think it is just to the Government that an attack should be made upon them before they have had put before them exactly what the public authorities require. I will only deal with one or two of the points which I think are well worthy of the consideration of the Government. The suggestion I am going to make is one which evidently does not find favour with the previous speakers. I want to have as far as possible, complete harmony of opinion upon this question, and I was going to suggest that the Government should be asked to appoint a Royal Commission. (Opposition cries of "No, no.") Hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that course, but I am anxious that a Royal Commission should not be a weapon of delay, for in the case of an urgent question like this, it is most important that you should have the very closest and most ample consideration by a competent body of men, and it appears to me that the broader you can make that body, the stronger it will be. There are hundreds of men outside the walls of this House who are most anxious about this question, and who have a deep and intimate knowledge of the subject, and whose aid would be most valuable to constitute a Royal Commission. I cannot help thinking that it would be a good thing for the Government to appoint such a Commission, with a most urgent Instruction that they should report upon certain cardinal questions before the end of this session. There is not the slightest reason why this should not be done, although this may be an unprecedented Instruction. If the House does not agree to a Commission, I would suggest that there should be a Committee of this House. I will mention three of the questions which might be considered. The first is the one which was dealt with by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and that is the question of the standing order which governs the Model Clauses in cases where property is taken for the public convenience. Those Model Clauses at present lay down the obligation, that where more than 19 houses are demolished there should be provision made for those who are displaced. I agree with my hon. friend in this, that there seems to be no necessity in the future for that limit being imposed. I know it is a difficult question, and it is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and it is one which would be quite worth the while of a Committee to investigate. Whilst upon this subject I would make a further suggestion, which is, that the clause should be amended in such a way that it would be made possible in future for the companies—they may be Gas or Railway Companies—who are responsible for the displacement of people, to transfer their obligation to the London County Council upon making a pecuniary payment. That would have to be done by an Act of Parliament, because it is necessary that it should be sanctioned by this House, and it is a question worth while taking evidence upon in order to obtain the opinions of directors of Railway and other companies. In many cases it is naturally the aim of companies to evade the duty of re-housing people who are displaced, and it is very important that the County Council should have some power of this kind, for the Council already has complete machinery at its disposal, and competent officials who are well qualified to take over work of this kind which they are now carrying out so successfully. I think that is a suggestion which might be well worthy of consideration, and which I cannot help thinking, if looked into, would possibly result in useful legislation. I take another point, and that is the question of the compensation allowed to owners of insanitary property. Of all the duties which at present devolve upon the London County Council there is none more onerous than that of clearing insanitary areas, and wiping them off the face of London. There are a good many foul spots, with all their tendency to disease and degradation, but these great clearances of insanitary areas have been made in the past and are now being made at vast expense to the ratepayers, owing to the scheme of compensation at present in existence. In this respect the London County Council is doing what is obviously its first duty, but under the administration of the present law it is being done in such a manner than vast irrecoverable loss is placed upon the ratepayers. It seems to me that the time has come when some alteration in that portion of the Housing Act should be made, because there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with a law which lays down, as is done at present, that a man who owns insanitary property, upon the intimation of the public authority that his property is unfit for human habitation, should receive compensation for that property upon the improved value of the land. It does seem to me that the time has come when less advantage should be granted to the owners of insantary property. That would have a most far-reaching effect in the future, because it would impose the responsibility on the ground owners in London to take care that the repairing clauses in their leases were no longer a dead letter. I know this is a complicated and thorny question. Before legislation can take place on it, involving as it will the whole question of land tenure in London, it would be right and just that a careful examination should be made. This subject might well be placed before a Committee, who should have ample opportunity of examining witnesses. I have no doubt they would be able to present a Report as to the lines on which legislation might be based. Part II. of the Housing Act deals with the closing of individual houses. There are hundreds of in- dividual houses which are not demolished, but ought to be. That is due to the lack of uniformity of system in the different districts where the law is administered. It seems to me well worth consideration, whether an amendment might not be made by which you should have some general comprehensive tribunal for London to deal with these cases. The initiative is now taken by different bodies, and they interpret the law in different ways. The law lays down that a house must be "incapable of repair, "but there is not a house that is incapable of repair according to the idea of some people. I should suggest that instead of the magistrates dealing with the cases as they do now in their own localities, there should be a central tribunal instituted permanently which would deal with all these cases. Time will not permit me to go into the big question of locomotion, which, to a large extent, underlies this housing question. That also might be brought before the Committee, and they might give useful advice with regard to future legislation in that direction. Personally, I do not agree with some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who suggested an amendment of the Cheap Trains Act. I do not believe that in the future the great trunk lines can play an important part in the locomotion of London. I believe you will have to introduce a system of subways, and electric tramways under the surface of the roads. You will have to rely, to a large extent, on tube railways. You cannot ask the trunk railways to dislocate and disorganise their traffic by undertaking what is, after all, a local and metropolitan service. Every one knows that large masses of the people are anxious to see some solution of the housing problem. I believe myself that it will only be by dealing with the smaller items—small by themselves, but taken collectively they are very large—that you will get a remedy for the question. I ask my friends to support the appeal I make for the appointment of a Committee of competent Members to take up this question and report upon it before the end of the session.

said the debate had taken the direction of dealing with the case of London only, but there were other parts of the three kingdoms which were interested in the housing question. One of the curious problems existing in Ireland was, that although the population was decreasing, overcrowding was increasing in Dublin, and, in a lesser degree, the same conditions existed in many towns and even villages in Ireland which cried for some kind of remedy. He was of opinion that the House had failed to grasp sufficiently the situation, because the trend of events went to show that the population was leaving the land and coming into the towns and villages, and the municipalities did not appear to be ready to meet the economic changes which were going on. Some hon. Members thought the time wasted in discussing this matter, but he held that this was a national social problem that demanded the gravest attention from every man who desired to see the Commonwealth prospering. It was not a question of the housing of the poor; it was a question of accommodating the workers. The housing of the very poor was done inthe workhouses. The obstacle in this matter was mainly the land laws. He happened to be on an Urban District Council, and the difficulty they had was in the acquiring of slum property. They had to buy it, and had then to build houses. Parliament not given them sufficient powers to grapple with the financial aspects of this problem, and the result was that the ratepayers were obliged to contribute unduly to the housing of the workers. Under present conditions moral decencies could not be properly observed, and undoubtedly drunkenness was largely the product of the slum dwellings. If civilisation was to be preserved in its true sense, they must tackle this housing question. He believed it was one of the most urgent that could be dealt with by the House. In the urban districts the value of land was going up, and local authorities had to face that difficulty. The system of land transfer in this country was very expensive. It would not be tolerated in any other civilised community. There were no cheap workmen's trains in Ireland, so that the people were in a worse position in that matter than in this country. There was no such provision made in regard to the artizans in Irish towns. The whole circumstances in connection with the transfer of land, the price of land, the difficulties of obtaining land, and the rates that must be charged in order to repay the ratepayers, formed a great difficulty. The result was that precisely the class for whom cheap, decent dwelling-houses were required, was that very class for whom they were not provided. He generally approved of what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but it was almost impossible for the great majority of Irish workers to pay from 6s. to 10s. a week rent. Their wages would not enable them to pay such fancy rents. This was a question that ought to be approached in the most solemn spirit by the House. There was this extraordinary position in the three kingdoms, that there were millions of workers—the wealth-producers of the country—who could be evicted from their homes at the whim of the landlords, at 10 days notice, even if the tenants were willing to pay an increased rent. It was the duty of the House to protect these workers. It seemed almost paradoxical and impossible, but it was the positive fact that paupers, lunatics, and criminals were better housed than the wealth-producers of the nation. He had seen that from personal inspection and investigation when he was visiting some of his political friends who were in prison, and he was acquainted with the arrangements of lunatic asylums and workhouses. That was a condition of affairs that ought not to continue. An hon. Member suggested that the Housing Acts should be simplified, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would approach the matter in the spirit of intelligence and action characteristic of him. He did not agree with the hon. Member for South Islington that the President of the Local Government Board was afraid of work. He knew from experience that the right hon. Gentleman liked work, and he was quite sure that this was a subject on which he would endeavour to make his mark. There were, no doubt, difficulties in every direction, but a Select Committee should be appointed, not necessarily of lawyers, but of men in sympathy with the question, and who knew the conditions of the housing of the working classes in municipalities and district councils, which could codify the Acts and bring about the needed amendments to cheapen and facilitate the working of the Act. With this question there were mixed up larger problems—those of terminable leases, the transfer of land, the taxation of land values and other matters; and the time had come when they ought to be considered seriously by the House. He happened to be a Member of the National Society for the Prevention of Tuberculosis in Dublin, and he was told that the principal source of that disease, in the great majority of cases, was the want of fresh air and comfort in the houses of the poor. The lamentably high death-rate in Dublin was due to the fact that the workers were obliged to live in ill-ventilated and overcrowded tenement houses, and the same thing had been proved by the hon. Member who introduced the amendment. Very little had been done to improve matters since the report of the Royal Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes 16 years ago, although promises had been made by all parties at every General Election, but he trusted that the result of this debate would be that something practical would be done, that the Select Committee would be appointed and report this Session, as the subject admitted of no delay.

I do not mean to occupy the time of the House at any length on a subject, which, I agree with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, is one well worthy of our attention, and of the general interest expressed in it. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member in so far as he described a state of things in many of our towns which ought to be known and condemned; and I welcome it also so far as it adhered to the promise of its opening that it should be of a non-partizan character. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he thought the party opposite to him were entitled to as much credit as his own for what they had done to forward this question. This was a very moderate meed of praise indeed, in view of the facts and of the history of the case; for while I frankly admit that the hon. Gentleman and others associated with him have made many speeches in and out of the House on this subject, I must remind the House that the party on this side have not been contented with making speeches. The whole of the legislation in which provision has been made for the housing of the working classes in various parts of the country, with the exception of the Shaftesbury Act, which itself was carried under a Conservative administration, is due to Conservative Governments. Therefore, I do not think that I am saying more for the party to which I belong than is the case when I maintain that that party does not deserve the condemnation which it has received from some of the speakers to-day. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he and his friends are anxious to deal with this question in the future, in so far as they can, in a non-partizan spirit. I do feel myself that these great social problems, like the housing of the working classes, which affect the moral condition of the people, might well be so treated. I confess I deeply resent the direct charge of the hon. Member for North Camberwell against the administration and myself that we have displayed absolute unconcern in the face of the existence of this evil in the country. The hon. Member bases that charge solely on the fact that there is no mention in the King's Speech of fresh legislation; he ignores altogether the fact to which the hon. Member for South Islington referred in his speech, that the Department with which I am connected has been in constant, and I may say without exaggeration, in laborious communication with the men in the country who are best acquainted in a practical way with this question; he entirely ignores the fact that the Act which my right hon. friend passed in 1900 could not possibly have had the effect which we all desire to see it have in so short a time. What was the great change that that Act brought into the Housing of the Working Classes Act? It enabled the Local Authorities for the first time to go outside their own areas; to remove the people from the congested districts and insanitary areas to the outside, and it is manifestly impossible that an Act of 1900, which has only been running fourteen months, should have had sufficient time to deal with this difficult problem. The hon. Member said that the Act of 1900 had been an abortion.

. No! The Act of 1899.

No; I think he went further than that; he referred to the working effect of the Act of 1900, and said that it was nil. I think he said that under the amending Act practically no scheme had been carried out. I would only point to the fact that the London County Council have already embarked in two large schemes outside their area. I am not going into the details of the work which ought to be done, and which it is right should be done by the Local Authorities. I have seen a great deal of Local Authorities, and have examined more than one of their schemes on the spot, and I know that the Local Authorities are striving with all their heart and might to deal with this great problem; therefore, it is in no disrespect of them, and certainly not with any desire to hinder the work which I believe they are doing, that I say that some of them, notwithstanding their desire to do well, are attempting to do that which is impossible. They have been endeavouring to provide dwellings for people in the congested districts on land which is of such a value that it is impossible to let them at a rental within the reach of the people it is sought to benefit. I believe that the true solution of this great problem is to remove the people from the crowded parts of the cities to the free country outside. In many places this has already been well done. I recently paid a visit to Hull, where admirable work has been done both in the work of clearing the slums and provision for the future. There I found the Local Authority have dealt with the slum areas, and have constructed a fine broad thoroughfare leading to the less populous parts of the town, and then private individuals have come forward and put up houses on property adjoining, the Local Authority doing the draining and lighting and so forth. The Local Authority having done the clearing, private enterprise has done the rest. Where this is possible, I venture to say that is the best solution of the difficulty of providing houses for the working classes. What, after all, are the suggested remedies the honourable Gentleman approves? They are four—or rather three, because with regard to the fourth the reform of the land laws, he said he would not ask the existing Government to deal with that, and therefore it is not necessary for me to deal with it, and I do not think it is the least probable that any Government of which I am a member will ever propose a scheme in that direction which will meet with the approval of the hon. Gentleman and his friends. Something has been said with regard to the question of the extension of the period for the repayment of loans, and something has been said about "model clauses. "Well, my hon. friend the Member for Hoxton secured last session the appointment of a Committee, agreed to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself. That Committee, unfortunately, did not sit owing to some delay in its final constitution, but it is the intention of the Government to ask for the appointment of a similar committee this session to deal with this problem. But these clauses must form a separate matter by themselves to be dealt with by a separate Committee, and therefore I suggest the appointment of last session should be repeated this session, and I hope the Committee will soon be appointed, and be able to dispose of the work which will be placed before them. The hon. Gentleman also made reference to the question of cheap transit. He appealed to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to give greater facilities in that direction. That is a matter for which I, as an individual, am in no way responsible, and I do not intend to enter into the question, because there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and it would not be possible to deal with it within the limit of time I have at my disposal; but I cannot help thinking and hoping that by improvements in locomotion and train service, or by quick tramcars, or by other means, it will be found possible in the future to take the workmen out of the crowded centres where they would get better houses and better air for their children to enjoy, that they may grow in strength and health. This is what we must look to, and I hope science will help us with fresh discoveries which will, if they do not settle this question, bring the solution nearer than it appears to be at present. My hon. friend, the Member for South Islington, referred to a deputation which he did me the honour to bring to me some time ago on behalf of the Municipal Corporations Association. He referred to some of the suggestions made by that Deputation and to my reply to that Deputation. I hope it will be possible during the session to deal with the question of the Borough Funds Act, which does, no doubt, put difficulties in the way of some municipalities, and there are some smaller matters where amendments might be made in the law, which, as it affects Local Authorities now, does impede them in their usefulness. Those amendments I hope I may be able, with the assistance of those who represent the Local Authorities in this House, to pass this session. They are not controversial questions. My hon. friend suggested that the vexed question of the extension of the period of the repayment of the loans should be referred to a Committee. This, after all, is the great practical question to which everything else comes back. My hon. friend, the Member for the Chippenham Division, also referred to it, and told us that sometimes when a Local Authority put into force the powers which they undoubtedly possess, to deal with insanitary or overcrowded areas, even though they may issue closing orders and avail themselves of the existing powers of the Acts to get the value of the land reduced when closing an insanitary area, they have to pay a great deal more for the land than they ought; but there is insanitary property and insanitary property. In some cases the property becomes insanitary by the gross neglect of the owner to keep it in order, and clearly in those cases, the owner ought not to get more through the action of the Local Authority than the actual value of the land. Then there is the other class of property which becomes insanitary and undesirable for habitation through no fault of the owners. The figures which have been given to me show that there is often a confusion between these classes of property, and I do not think the majority of this House would ever consent to the confiscation of property, solely because it was desired to make provision for the working classes who want better houses. I have been engaged in the examination of this question, and I will look further into it, but I cannot agree with my hon. friend that it is necessary to refer it to a Committee of this House, and certainly not to a Royal Commission. My hon. friend cannot have the experience of a Royal Commission which I have, or he would not suggest that a Royal Commission should sit and report this session, or that I should direct them to report at once. I am afraid they would treat such directions with scant courtesy, and they would have no effect upon their deliberations. My experience is that a Royal Commission has to sit a considerable time because of the mass of matter it has to enquire into. At the same time, if I find, either with regard to the question of valuation or any other part of the administration of the Act that I require the assistance of a Committee, I shall not hesitate to ask the House to consent to its appointment. With regard to the question of the repayment of loans, I feel that we are in a different position. We had a debate upon the subject last year,†and I think I expressed my views very much on the same lines as those expressed to-night by my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford, and I then ventured to point out that the effect of an extended period for repayment would mean a very small relief indeed to the Local Authority incurring the debt. It was not difficult to show that local indebtedness had increased enormously, and that its growth has been quite out of proportion to the growth of the local revenue. Thus in the year 1874–5 the local debt was £92,820,100, and the Rateable value of England and Wales £115,646,631; in 1898–9 the debt had grown to £276,229,048, the Rateable value only to £180,406,420. The figures show a very grave disparity, but I am not one of those who, looking at the growth of local taxation, believe that the Local Authorities have done wrong. There is no doubt that the Local Authorities have a very great deal of lost ground to make up; that the extraordinary growth of population, and its concentration in very limited spaces in great towns has taken place with such great rapidity, that it has been almost impossible to keep pace with it, and a great deal of work which ought to have been done years ago, and which might have been done, has now to be done by the Local Authorities who are now spending money on four or five important matters at once. Their water supply may be bad in quantity, and insufficient in quality, and there are other local needs pressing upon them, the condition of the houses of the people living in the midst of the towns and other evils may require to be remedied, and when they are brought face to face with all these facts, we cannot blame them if they spend money freely in order to get rid of some of these evils.

†July 16th, 1901. (See (4) Debates, xcvii., 602; refer also to Vol. xcviii., 1320.)

But although I do not believe or suggest that this enormous growth of indebtedness is due to extravagance or unreasonable expenditure on the part of the Local Authorities, I do say that having regard to this fact, and also to the very small relief an extension for the repayment would give, it is impossible for the President of the Local Government Board to assent to a change in the policy which has been pursued for so many years, unless there is a clear expression of opinion in that behalf on the part of Parliament. The hon. Member for North Camberwell is so rapid a mover and worker himself that he thinks everybody should be ready immediately, and he blamed me last year, and now blames me again, for not having sanctioned the extension of the period for the repayment of loans. Let me remind him that for years this policy has been maintained by the Local Government Board. Upon whom will the liability from any change in that policy fall? It will not fall upon us or our supporters, but upon those who cannot now be consulted as to whether they approve of what the present generation of legislators is doing. I do not think a minister with my experience would take such a responsibility as that without the full sanction of Parliament. I am bound to confess that owing to the differences in the law in London and the country, it is a very difficult matter to deal with; Parliament itself has not been consistent in the matter. It has invariably condemned every proposal for an extension of the period in the House of Commons itself but when you go from the House of Commons itself to the House sitting in Committees upstairs, the policy is quite different to that which the House formulated here. You find Committees giving Local Authorities borrowing powers which the House has refused. So that you have a conflict of ideas which is very confusing, and with regard to which it is difficult for anybody to take up any immovable attitude. When the deputation from the Municipal Corporations Association waited upon me, I promised I would consider whether the best and wisest course would not be to ask Parliament to appoint a Committee to examine the whole question of the repayment of loans, and as to whether land is to be treated as an asset and not as part of the debt, and generally to review the whole question and pronounce an opinion which would be a guide not only to the Government but to the country generally. I am prepared to ask the House to appoint such a Committee, and I listened gladly to the assurance of my hon. friend, the Member for South Islington when he told us that if that course was adopted those he represented would be prepared to abide by that inquiry. That is the course which I am prepared to recommend with regard to "land as an asset, "and that part of the question generally known as the extension of the period of loans. These are two questions about which there has been a great deal of controversy. My hon. friend and many others believe that the financial question is the root of the evil. With regard to the housing of the working classes, I do not share that view, but I think a view so strongly and generally expressed is entitled to courteous and careful consideration, and I am prepared to ask the House to appoint a Committee, and refer the whole of these questions to them. I have now dealt with all the points raised generally. With regard to one or two minor suggestions which have been made for an alteration in the law I agree that a collection of small amendments might be made which would form a useful addition to the law. For instance, at the Local Government Board we think that the central authority should be in one office, and not divided as at present between the Home Office and the Local Government Board. That is, I think, a useful suggestion because it would throw the whole administration into one Department, and after all the question of housing has more to do with local government than any other department. Then there was a suggestion that Local Authorities would carry out their schemes more successfully if they were able to establish shops and build club-rooms as part of or attached to the buildings they propose to erect. At present they are not able to do anything of this kind under Part III of the Act, though it has been done under Part I. That is a suggestion which has been frequently urged by Local Authorities and I think its adoption would be some benefit to them. I have dealt with the various points raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell but the general answer is, I think, given in his own speech. He is one of the strongest advocates we have of the cause of education, and he knows very well that there are education and other questions to deal with this Session, and I certainly think it is a little unreasonable on his part to blame the Department to which I belong, which has already two measures in the King's Speech, because it is not ready with a great measure on the subject of Housing. All I need say further is this, speaking for my colleagues as well as myself, we are all anxious that every possible assistance should be given to Local Authorities to carry out their difficult work and to deal with this most difficult task, and we will certainly not throw any impediment in their way. If it can be clearly shown that amendments of the law are necessary, I shall be prepared to consider them, and, if possible, to give effect to them. But I believe that rather in administration than in new legislation will be found a remedy, for in most respects there are ample powers if only they are vigorously exercised.

I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think something ought to be said with reference to the concessions the right honourable Gentleman has made. He has gone almost further than I expected him to do in that portion of his speech referring to slum property, which is allowed by the owner to continue in a bad state in order that the Local Authority may be forced to acquire it under such terms as enable the owner to make a profit on it. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has gone so far as to indicate that he is willing, at all events, to support efforts to correct the law in that direction. He has shown a better spirit than was exhibited in the last Parliament, when the Bill of 1900 was parsed. It was then contended on this side that the facilities for acquiring land for a great national purpose like this ought to be increased, and we protested against ten per cent. compensation being given to owners of slum property, but we were then unable to obtain any concession. The right hon. Gentleman has also agreed to a Committee in reference to the extension of the period of loans, and as to the position in which the land ought to stand. In these respects I think the right hon. Gentleman has met the House in a liberal spirit. I do not wish for a moment to make this a party question. It is a question of such great national importance that it rises far above party considerations. But when the right hon. Gentleman takes credit to himself and his party for having passed all the legislation that has been placed upon the Statute-book in reference to this question, he must also take the responsibility of the inefficiency of that legislation. There is no doubt that, as regards rural housing, the Act of 1890 has been a great failure, and there is every prospect of a similar result in regard to the Act of 1900. The provisions of the Act are not sufficiently drastic, and there are still too many delays and difficulties in dealing with land in rural districts, where this question is just as urgent as in towns, if the people are to live in decency, and have adequate provision made for public health. The defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division is based on a fallacy which has more than once been trotted out in these debates. He says that what we want is improved administration. All the improved administration in the world would not meet this evil. There are adequate powers all round for closing insanitary property, but the great defect of all legislation is that there are not adequate powers for erecting new buildings in its place. I believe that that defect will never be properly remedied until some of the measures hinted at by the hon. Member for North Camberwell in regard to land reform are carried into effect. The administration of the Acts works in this way: The power of closing houses is stringent, and the Local Authorities are willing to certify property as bad, but they are at once met by the fact that they are dislodging their population and have no place in which to put the people. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country living in houses which are insanitary and unfit for human habitation, the Local Authorities being afraid to condemn the houses because there is nowhere else for the people to go. The supreme necessity of dealing with this question is shown by the instances which have been quoted of men in receipt of full wages being obliged, in consequence of their inability to obtain houses, to put their families in receipt of the hospitality of local workhouses, and, in some cases, to give up their work and go into the workhouse themselves. Such a condition of things indicates a scandal which most urgently requires legislation. The morality of the people largely depends on the manner in which they are housed. The urgency of the question is reinforced at the present time by the thought of the possibility of a terrible epidemic in the midst of a badly housed population. The best economy in all these cases is to meet the difficulty quickly, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is willing to appoint this Committee this session, but I wish he had shown to the deputations that waited on him a more active sympathy. After all, what the Local Authorities want in this matter is encouragement. The price they have to pay for land for housing purposes makes it almost impossible for them to undertake building operations without serious loss. I think one of the Local Authorities declared that if the period of the loan was extended it would enable them to let their houses at 6d. per week less. That amount would make all the difference to many working men, especially those in receipt of the lower rates of wages, between taking a house and not taking it. If the rate of interest could be lowered, and the period of the loan extended, it would give Local Authorities all over the country that encouragement which is so necessary, and induce them to assist in the solution of this great social question. I hope the Committee, when it is appointed, will have power to consider the question of the rate of interest as well as that of the extension of the period of loan, so that Local Authorities may have the fullest facilities possible.

There is one matter in regard to which Local Authorities generally believe the Local Government Board could give them even more effective assistance than by prolonging the period of the repayment of the loan. The extent to which such a prolongation to the utmost lawful period under present legislation would assist the Local Authorities is about one per cent., so that if a cottage cost £250 that would represent 1s. per week on the rent. That, to a man earning 20s. a week, is a very material matter. My right hon. friend has promised to give consideration to that matter, and I am sure the Local Government Board under his direction will, after the deliberations of the Committee, arrive at the conclusion that the municipal authorities of the country are right in the recommendation they have again and again urged on the Department, viz., that this extension should be made. But I wish to refer to the practice of the Local Government Board, under which, instead of permitting Local Authorities to build dwellings for the working classes in accordance with the provisions of their own by-laws, which are sanctioned by the Local Government Board, the Department enforce other provisions, either in the name of sanitation, or for reasons known to the inspectors of the Department, and these provisions enhance the cost of the dwellings far more than is represented by one per cent., or even, in many cases, by two per cent. I have had dwellings pointed out to me which could have been erected for £400, the cost of which has been increased by from 50 to 100 per cent., because the Local Government Board inspectors have insisted upon requirements which the Local Authority could not have insisted on if local contractors or builders had been willing to undertake the erection of the dwellings.

Will the hon. Member supply me with an instance?

I think I can supply my right hon. friend with an instance at Plymouth, where, as I am told by a member of the Local Authority, the cost of the buildings was increased certainly by 50 per cent., and, I believe, by considerably more.

I quite admit that that may have occurred. What I ask for is an instance in which it occurred, and the conditions on which the Local Government Board insisted.

I well tell my right hon. friend what was the nature of the condition. It required a class of building far superior to what was required in a building of the same kind under the local by-laws, and it also included, I believe, provisions as to air space different from the conditions of the local by-laws. It cannot be right as a matter of principle that the Local Authority should be prevented from erecting buildings for the poorest class of the community in accordance with by-laws which were sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the whole community. If my right hon. friend will give us some promise of consideration of this, which is felt to be a pressing grievance by Local Authorities whose constituents are crying out to them to deal with a question they cannot deal with because of the financial difficulties at present surrounding it; if my right hon. friend will give us that assurance in addition to the promise he has made in regard to the terms of the loans, I am sure that Local Authorities throughout the country will feel very grateful to him for such a practical result from this discussion.

said that in any Committee appointed to consider this most important question of the housing of the working classes, the case of Ireland should be taken into consideration. At the present time Ireland was excluded from the operation of several very valuable provisions in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and he especially urged that a district like the City of Dublin should be taken into consideration. A distressing picture of the conditions under which the poor lived in London had been drawn, but he could draw a very sad picture of the conditions under which the poor were housed in the City of Dublin. The far more pressing necessity of the housing of the very poor had been neglected owing to the congestion which prevailed in Dublin, and this had caused rents to go up to such a figure that it was impossible to have the poor living under any other but conditions which were a scandal to the community. He thought a much wider scope ought to be given for the clearing of insanitary areas. The Dublin Corporation had at all times been greatly interested in this question, but their powers were surrounded by so many restrictions that they were practically prevented from clearing away a good many insanitary areas. They had to leave many slums and plague spots in Dublin alone because the Corporation could not compel the owners to put them into proper habitable repair. The only thing they could do was to close those houses, but then arose the difficulty of where to put the poor people who were displaced. There was one area in Dublin in which the Corporation could not compel the owners to put the property into a proper sanitary condition, and they had either to turn the people out with only the prospect of the poorhouse before them, or else allow those poor people to continue to live in their present deplorable state. The owners kept this class of property in this condition because they believed that the Corporation would have to come down and pay them a fancy price for it. He was very much surprised that no mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of the intention of the Government to deal with this question. There was another question which he would impress upon this promised Committee, and that was that there should be some amendment of the Small Dwellings Act. The Dublin Corporation were anxious to carry out their responsibilities by putting the provisions of that Act into operation, but owing to the number of restrictions with which they were surrounded, practically not a single working-man in Dublin had been able to avail himself of that Act. One of his own workmen, who was prepared to put down the sum of money required, made an application to take advantage of the Act. The Corporation found him a most suitable person, but when they sent his title to the responsible authority, because he was not able to show a 40 years title it was ruled out, and the Corporation could not consider his case. The Corporation passed resolutions upon the subject, and he asked questions upon it across the floor of the House, and he was told that it was necessary to have some amendment in the Small Dwellings Act. He hoped that point would be considered by the Committee which was to be appointed. They would have to take into consideration in Dublin the peculiar circumstances of the city. The large houses in the city had been turned into tenements, and in consequence of the ground rents and the high values which had been placed upon the houses the rents were very high. In any settlement of this question it would be idle, as far as Dublin was concerned, to deal with it from a practical point of view unless the question of taxing the ground rents was taken into consideration. It was impossible to house the people in Dublin except in tenement houses. In the street where he lived in Dublin he knew a purchaser who bought two houses and paid £400 for them. He paid £27 10s. ground rent, and taxes up to £20 were added on the valuation. The result was, that what with wear and tear, ground rent, and taxes, he was practically getting no profit, and in letting out in tenements he was obliged to make the tenants pay a higher rental. Why should the ground rents not be taxed? While the value of property in Dublin was depreciating, the same ground rents went on for ever. Therefore, in any measure put forward, the question of the taxation of ground rents would have to be taken into consideration. The Corporation of Dublin at the present time were anxious to house the workers, but unfortunately their experience in that direction had not been of such a nature as was calculated to make them spend more money. They had endeavoured to clear insanitary areas, with the result that they had been compelled to pay such enormous sums for the ground before they could build upon it that it would be impossible for the Corporation to get a penny back at anything like a fair market price. In one case the Corporation of Dublin had to pay some £40,000 for about 13 acres of ground, and then they had to spend another £40,000 upon buildings, out of which there would not be a penny profit. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to expect the Corporation of Dublin to erect houses suitable for the working classes, and unless this promised Committee gave power to Corporations to compel owners of insanitary property to put their houses into proper condition, it would be worse than useless to attempt to give effect to the carrying out of the Housing of the Working Classes Act.

I do not think that anyone can reasonably complain that a Welsh Member has put down an Amendment to the King's Speech in the terms of the Amendment which stands in my name; terms which are amply justified, as I shall show later on; as regards the first part of the Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as regards the second part by the Colonial Secretary's speeches made over a series of years, not in his Radical days, but as a Unionist statesman. During the last Parliament an Amendment similar in terms to the first part of this Amendment, which expressed regret that the Speech from the Throne contained no reference to Welsh questions, was twice submitted to the House. In the course of one of the debates on those Amendments the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:

"I do recognise as Parliament has already recognised, that the circumstances of people who live in Wales are in some respects peculiar and different from those of people who live in the rest of England, and that they require to be dealt with in certain matters very differently. That is a principle which I accept, but you cannot do everything at once. We will endeavour as far as we can to meet those necessities as far as time permits, but it is impossible for us to describe every proposal that is under our consideration on every matter with which we may hope to deal within the limits of His Majesty's Speech."

The words I have quoted contain an admission and a promise—a full and frank admission of the right of Wales to separate treatment, and a promise, if words mean anything, that the necessities of Wales would be attended to as far as time permitted. After that statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is unnecessary for me to discuss because it is outside the pale of discussion: the right of Wales to separate legislation. This right has been established once and for all by the passage of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act and the Welsh Sunday Closing Act—one passed by a Liberal, the other by a Conversative Government, and by a number of administrative acts with which I need not weary the House. The expediency of those acts of Legislation and Administration has teen proved again and again. A Royal Commission was appointed on hostile initiative to enquire into the work of the Sunday Closing Act, and it gave as the result of its enquiries a most emphatic endorsement to the policy of the Act. As regards the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, so well has it worked in the past, that the Government could not find a better example to copy, in the plan of secondary Education which was submitted to the House last session. I give these instances to show that the experiment of granting special legislation and powers of administration to Wales has been successful. We have a right to ask why these powers, which have been used so wisely and so well, should not be extended. As regards the first part of my amendment, it is now eleven years since the last piece of legislation was passed for Wales. During the last six years no attempt whatever has been made to meet the legislative wants and wishes of the Welsh people. Every year the people of Wales read the King's Speech to see whether it contains anything affecting the special interests of their country. Every year they are disappointed, and this year has been no exception to the rule. Of course it is useless to expect the present Government to deal with great contentious questions like Religious Equality, Temperance, and Land Reform, in the sense in which the great majority of the Welsh people would like to see them dealt with. The Government give us a blank denial on those questions, and Wales responds by sending twenty-eight out of thirty-four members to oppose His Majesty's Government. We were told that the Welsh people would become indifferent to these things, but the last election pointed a very different moral. The results throughout the country showed that the Government dissolved at the most favourable time possible. The war, so we were all told, was triumphantly ended. But even under those circumstances, not only did the Government not win a single seat in Wales, but they lost some seats, and in others their supporters had the utmost difficulty in holding their own. The Government has, at the present time, only six supporters out of thirty-four Welsh Members. The cause of this great disparity in representation is perfectly well understood in Wales. The Welsh people quietly but firmly hold fast by the great principle of civil and religious equality. Taking the country as a whole, fashions change in politics, but political fashions do not change in the country which we represent. It would be quits useless for me to address the right hon. Gentleman on any of those great controversial questions; I know perfectly well the reply he would make. But there are certain questions which are not of that highly contentious character, which deserve and should receive the early attention of His Majesty's Government. I will give one or two examples. The Welsh Sunday Closing Act is a most excellent measure, and is acknowledged on all hands to have done a great amount of good in Wales. In that Act, after a year or two's working, certain defects were discovered, and a Royal Commission recommended that these defects should be remedied. Why should not that question be taken up? The Government profess to be anxious to do something in the direction of temperance legislation. Why will they not take up a Bill of this kind, but a small Bill, but one in which the Welsh people take a very deep and practical interest? The Act itself has very largely improved the social condition of the Principality on the Sunday; all that we ask is that it should be extended and perfected. When I put this matter to the late Home Secretary the reply I received was that a Royal Commission was sitting, and that until it reported it would be improper for the Government to take any action whatever. That Commission has now reported, and, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not proceed with the question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say there is no time. This is one of the great evils of the congestion of business from which this House does undoubtedly suffer, and from which a small country like Wales suffers perhaps more than any other part of the United Kingdom. An Act is passed. It is found to require amendment. But that Act must go on working defectively for twenty years before that amendment can be effected. Passing to another question, I will make a further appeal to His Majesty's Government with regard to a practical measure in which the ratepayers of Wales take a very strong interest. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon gave us some interesting figures as to local indebtedness. He did not, of course, go into the various causes of that indebtedness, but he will probably agree that one of the causes, at any rate, is the immense cost of obtaining Parliamentary powers. Take for instance, the coast of North Wales. There a number of watering places are springing up very rapidly; they require powers for obtaining gas, water, electricity, tramways, and all those other advantages and amenities which have become indispensable to every seaside resort, but in order to obtain those powers they have to come up here and undergo very large expense. I could give the name of one small coast town in North Wales, where the rates, which under ordinary circumstances, ought to be about 4s. in the £, have been no less than 11s., and are still at a very high figure. Another very small watering place, with a population of 1,000, had to pay no less than £2,000 to obtain a trumpery little water Bill to which there was hardly any opposition at all. Then, need I say that in South Wales, in regard to the construction of docks, and great industrial undertakings requiring Parliamentary sanction, the expense, owing to the distance, at which the work has to be done and to which witnesses have to be taken and maintained, is enormous. Scotland has obtained a measure with regard to Private Bill legislation. None of us grudge, in the slightest degree, the powers that Scotland has obtained; they conduce to economy, and economy, we have been told, is a virtue very dear to the heart of every Scotsman. But some years ago I asked the Government for a Return showing the number of Private Bills applied for from Wales and Scotland respectively. That Return was not granted, as, indeed, these small requests of Welsh Members very seldom are. But I went into the matter myself one year, and in that particular year Wales applied for no less than 23 private Bills, while Scotland applied for only nine. Under these circumstances, surely we are entitled to a measure which will enable us to transact our Private Bill legislation at home and save these places—many of them small and heavily burdened with rates and a debt which hangs like a mill-stone around the necks of the ratepayers—from much unnecessary expense. Then to pass to the sphere of administration, we have for many years past asked that Wales should be treated with justice in the matter of the Museum Grants of the United Kingdom. I venture to say that what occurred last year has greatly strengthened our right—a right which has never yet been contested by any Government, Liberal or Conservative. Last year a tax was imposed on exported coal. That tax amounted to about £2,000,000, of which no less than £900,000 comes from the Principality. I hope, therefore, we shall hear nothing about small educational grants or anything of that kind. Why, in asking for this Museum Grant we are merely asking for what one might call, in the language of commerce, a small discount on this enormous burden of special taxation which has been placed upon Wales. In reviewing the history of the last six years, we see that the Government have done absolutely nothing for the special Welsh interests to which my Amendment refers. But I must correct myself by making one small exception. The Government did introduce and pass a measure called the Berriew Bill. That Bill related to one small parish in Wales, containing 381 County Council electors, and of those 381 electors 349 signed a petition against the Bill. Yet the Government granted special facilities for that Bill. That is the way in which the Government in the past have dealt with the requests of the Welsh people. They refuse the requests of the Welsh people as a whole, and they give to a small minority in a small parish a measure such as the one I have described. The case of Welsh Members in these days is all the harder because gradually the Executive is becoming all powerful. We see before our eyes the Executive absorbing power after power which for- merly belonged to private Members. Nowadays, the private Member has very little chance, indeed, of initiatinglegislation, and absolutely no chance whatever of carrying it through without Government assistance. During the whole of the last Parliament, Welsh Members repeatedly made attempts to bring under the notice of Parliament the great questions in which they are interested. They submitted to the chances of the ballot, but their time, when the opportunity was obtained, was taken from them in the most ruthless way. The first Lord of the Treasury has always done his execution in the most charming manner, but when one's head is cut off it does not in the least matter whether the executioner is the most agreeable man in the world or not. I hope that after this evening's debate we may have some concession, but, so far, not only have the Government refused to take up these Welsh questions, but they have, as far as they could, prevented Welsh Members bringing them forward. I cannot, however, in fairness, put all these difficulties down to the hostility of the Government alone; it would not be reasonable to do so. Parliamentary congestion has a great deal to do with the difficulty of obtaining time to discuss the affairs of a small country like Wales. Supposing, for instance, we had in power a Government with the very beat will in the world towards Wales, its difficulties in that direction would undoubtedly be very great. Now I come to the second part of my amendment, which deals with the way in which some portion of these difficulties may be overcome, and I shall invoke the high authority of the Colonial Secretary on this particular point. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking in Scotland, but his words are just as applicable to Wales, as it happens, and later on he specifically referred to Wales. Here are the words of the Colonial Secretary—

"The difficulty is that owing to the tremendous pressure of Imperial business"—

since he uttered those words the pressure of Imperial business has certainly not lessened in any degree—

"Scottish business gets crowded out and cannot be brought up for discussion or settlement at all. But Parliament—and in my opinion it would be a wise proceeding—might delegate to a local assembly, or to more than one, if there were such a distinction of interests as would justify a division of that kind—it might delegate to local national, or provincial assemblies such questions as education, public works, local government and private bill legislation; and these matters being taken out of Parliament would relieve the pressure, and enable members to do their work much better, and at the same time they would create and develop a local enterprise and a local patriotism which I believe would do much for the welfare and prosperity of the whole country."

Then the right hon. Gentleman gives a most interesting sketch of what in his opinion the various grades in the hierarchy of Government ought to be. It is extremely interesting, because his prophecy has been fulfilled in parts but not entirely.

"You would have," he said "according to a plan of that kind, an ascending scale of local institutions. You would have in the first place, the village council dealing with the petty interests of a very limited area; you would have above that the great municipalities and the county boards with much larger authority and powers, and, of course with a much extended area; then you would have the provincial assemblies with strictly defined powers of legislation; above all, yon would have an Imperial Parliament, with supreme and concurrent authority, which it could use if there were any attempt to abuse their powers by any of the subordinate bodies."

The Colonial Secretary described four stages in the ascending scale of Local Government—the Parish Council, which was established by a Liberal Government, the County Council Municipalities, and the District Council, established partly by a Conservative and partly by a Liberal Government. These institutions have worked admirably, and have fully justified their creation. But next we come to what the Colonial Secretary calls the provincial Assemblies with strictly defined powers of legislation strictly subordinate to the Imperial Parliament. This was not by any means the only occasion on which the Colonial Secretary spoke in support of the policy of relieving the Imperial Parliament and enabling local and provincial work to be done more effectively. Speaking at Dundee two years later, on the 14th February 1889, he said—

"I have never doubted for a moment that it would be desirable that the whole of the Private Bill Legislation of the separate countries should be transacted in the separate countries."

Then the right hon. gentleman says—

"But I am willing to go further than that. I am prepared to believe that it is in the interest of Scotland, of Wales,"

the House will note that the right hon. Gentleman specially referred to Wales,

"and of Ireland also in due time,—that not only Local Government should be conceded to them in the complete sense, not only that their Municipal and County Institutions should be completed and perfected, but that we might go beyond that, and that we might create representative authorities of wider scope and larger powers."

These are not the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman's Radical days. They are his matured views as a Unionist. I might also quote from another statesman of equal authority and eminence to the right hon. Gentleman himself, who made a series of speeches on this subject seven years ago, speeches which I thought showed the prescience of a far-sighted statesman. The truth is, that Parliament must come to it sooner or later. The House has no more time at its disposal now than it had a hundred years ago, before the greater part of our vast Colonial and Eastern Empire had come into being. Since then the work of Parliament has greatly increased in importance and complexity. We are now in the closest touch with our most distant Colonies and dependencies, and the amount of work, domestic and foreign, which Parliament has to supervise is enormous. It is utterly impossible for any one assembly, however constituted or however perfect its rules of procedure may be, to do this work adequately. Indeed, Parliament has only time to deal with a small fraction of the immense and far reaching problems which fall within its purview, We are told that the Government have decided to alter the rules of procedure, but I see no hope for Wales in this direction, and I venture to predict that no alteration in rules will meet the real difficulty, which is to obtain a fairer and fuller discussion of the more important topics of Parliamentary business. Restrictive and coercive measures have been tried before and have dismally failed. Great things were hoped from the new rule in Supply, adopted about five years ago, by which Fridays were regularly allocated for discussions on the Estimates. What has Wales gained by the change in the Supply Rules? We have tried, year after year, to get some discussion on the Woods of Forests Vote, in which many questions of interest to Wales, like foreshores and afforesting, are bound up. Last session many efforts were made to obtain a short space of Parliamentary time for its consideration, but in vain. That is only one example of the many questions relating to Wales which ought to be debated, but for which no time can be found. I am aware that Wales is not the only sufferer, and that as regards the general affairs of the country far more important questions like, for example, the Military and Naval Works Bills, which covered an expenditure of £10,000,000 and which was carried through at the fag end of last session. Why cannot the Government come to the conclusion that no mere alterations of the rules of the House will get rid of these evils. If a man is overworked, he may get relief to some extent by arranging his work better, but if he has the work of ten men given him to do, no amount of re-arrangement will relieve him. A sensible man of business will do as much as he can of the most important work, and devolve the rest upon others. The only true remedy is for Parliament to devolve much of its detail work upon smaller Assemblies, and I suggest that a beginning should be made with Wales, where the Central Board of Intermediate Education, which represents the whole of Wales, and other administrative bodies, have done their work admirably. This is the only policy which will give the Imperial Parliament time to attend to Imperial concerns, and to supervise the gigantic and growing expenditure of the country. By throwing off the burden of local work it will make real reform possible in the various ways in which the law needs to be readjusted to the changed conditions of society. I do not know what response the Government intend to make to this appeal, but if the reply is in the negative, I should like to be informed whether it is intended that the neglect of Wales, which has prevailed for the last six years, is intended to be permanent The reply we had from the late Home Secretary was an absolute denial of every claim, and the political effect of has speech, and particularly of one phrase he used, was very remarkable. Now let me summarise what my objections are to the existing system. In the first place, the measures which Wales desires and asks for by an overwhelming majority, are not granted. In the second place, the measures which the great majority of the Welsh people hate an forced upon them; and in the third place in regard to proposals relating to Wales on which there is a general measure of concurrence, Parliament either cannot, or will not give time for their consideration. Our right to further legislation has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The way in which relief can come has been shown over and over again by the Colonial Secretary, and the time has come when we as Welsh members may fairly ask "does the Government assent to or does it repudiate the doctrine of the Colonial Secretary in regard to the extension of local self-government?" If you repudiate it, what is your alternative? For our own part we assert that Wales has deserved better treatment than that which she has received during the past six years at the hands of the Imperial Parliament. Wales is a loyal and a law-abiding portion of the Empire. Her people have made good use of the powers of local government already granted them. I ask you to extend their powers, feeling confident that Wales will use them with wisdom and sobriety, and in a businesslike and patriotic spirit.

I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. friend. The mover of this Amendment has, I think, made out a very strong case, and he has pointed out matters of the most serious concern to the representatives of Welsh constituencies. Not only this but he has also pointed out the remedy. I know that in some portions of the House there is a strong feeling against the Amendment of my hon. friend, and I am well aware that the House is always very careful and reluctant to delegate any of its powers to other bodies. But you must remember that unless something of the kind is done legislation must stand still. I suppose that the main duty of this House, is after all, to satisfy the necessities of every part of the country. If the House were adequately to control and satisfy the legislative requirements of every part of the country there would, of course, be no need for the Amendment just moved by my hon. friend, but the reverse is the case. He has referred to the fact that the Government is pledged to amend the rules of procedure. That is a proof that the House is no longer able to give the requisite time and attention to the matters calling to be dealt with in the way it was able to do in previous times. If any such Amendment of the rules of procedure should take the form of curtailing the time which is at the disposal of Members for discussing the questions which come before the House, then I have no hesitation in saying that it would be thrown out. The object of the House should be to pass sound but not hasty legislation. There are two obstacles to the passing of sound legislation through the House under present circumstances. One of these is the fact that there is great stress and competition from all quarters of the House for the introduction of Bills and passing them, if possible, through the House. There are many measures urgently called for which have no chance of coming before the House at all. The Government are well aware of that. Time after time there are measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne which Ministers eventually find themselves unable to bring before the House. Another obstacle to the passing of legislation is the number of speakers who are to be found ready and willing now to give their opinions on the measures which are brought forward for discussion. Whether that is an evil or a good is not for me to say, but the fact is one which it certainly behoves the Government to recognise. This obstacle could be removed by adopting the Amendment of my hon. friend. I suppose one of the main questions Parliament has to consider is the special need of Wales. I know there are hon. Members who say—Why should Parliament have regard to the legislative needs of Wales more than to those of Yorkshire? They seem to think that when they have compared Wales to an English county they have settled the question once for all. I do not think they will be surprised if we say that it does not satisfy us, and looking to the history of Wales we say that the people there differ in race, language, sentiment, religious views, and political aspirations from the great bulk of the people who compose the United Kingdom. That difference constitutes one of the claims for special legislation for the Principality of Wales. I know, of course, that we can only get anything in this House if the people of England are willing to give it to us. England has been called the predominent partner, but we must remember that the notion of partnership involves mutual rights and obligations, and all that we want is that the rights of Wales and the obligations of England should be equally considered. When we ask for power for Wales to deal with certain matters in the manner which she wishes, I think I may point out that the grant of this power will in no way injure England or any other part of the United Kingdom. It has been well said that you must not legislate in advance of public opinion, but I suppose that as regards temperance it would be impossible to do this. Wales is ripe for a wider and bigger measure of temperance reform than England. If that measure were granted to Wales how could England be injured. We all deplore the curse of intemperance, but surely if Wales is given the power to remedy it it will be a gain to England. In asking power for separate treatment we are asking something which will benefit Wales and in no way injure England. In the matter of land Wales is really more ready for legislation than people generally suppose. A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject and there were majority and minority Reports. The minority Report was signed by, I believe, three Conservative gentlemen. The recommendations of these Commissioners are such as would satisfy the majority, I think, of the tenant farmers of Wales. They dwelt with the questions of security of tenure and compensation for improvements. If Wales were only given power to deal with these matters in her own way we should have a concensus of opinion not, only on the part of Liberals, but also of Conservatives in carrying out such a measure. I may be asked, Why should Wales claim special legislation? I should refer to the representation of Wales. Since 1868 Wales has given a solid and substantial Liberal majority to the House. I believe that in no country, with the exception of Ireland, has the representation proceeded so consistently on the same lines as in Wales. The Scottish people are credited with considerable tenacity of purpose. Not so long ago Scotland had a Liberal majority, and now I believe that country does not return a Liberal majority (cheers). Yes, you may applaud that, but you should bear in mind the consistency of Wales, which for many years has stuck to its principles. I admit that the Welsh Liberal majority is not pleasing to the Government, because we do not see eye to eye with the Government. Although it is not pleasing to the Government, it is a fact which the members of the Government must take care to recognise. Wales already has had separate treatment in regard to Sunday Closing and Intermediate Education. These measures, I admit, were granted by this Parliament, but now we have got into such a state of things that the Government themselves see it is impossible to carry on the work of the House with the present machinery. I doubt whether they will carry it on better with amended machinery, and therefore it is impossible to look to any such reform for a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. If you adopt the proposal of devolution made in my hon. friend's Amendment you will allow the people of Wales to manage their own affairs according to Liberal ideas. My honourable friend has referred to Private Bill Legislation. It is an undoubted scandal that if a town in Wales desires the control of gas or water or any public undertaking it should have to bring witnesses and lawyers to the Committee rooms upstairs at great cost to the rate payers. I would suggest that those matters should be delegated to a Committee in Wales, which would do the work equally well as a Committee upstairs. It may be asked how we could get such a Committee in Wales. I would suggest through the County Councils. These County Councils already have the power to combine for certain purposes. The work done by the County Councils is very satisfactory, and is work of which wales has reason to be proud. The County Councils have administered their affairs, on the whole, well and wisely. Men of every social and political grade find seats on the Councils, and they form a body of men whose efficiency and impartiality cannot be surpassed. In these County Councils you have an organisation ready to hand which can well be trusted to do for Wales what is at present done in Committee upstairs. And, after all, federation is not a new idea in Wales. We have federated for the purposes of the Intermediary Education Act. My honourable friend has referred to the Intermediary Education Act as a model Act for the three Kingdoms. We have also federated the three Colleges of Wales, and formed a University by doing so. I think we can go a step further, and that I can claim for my countrymen that whenever they had the chance they have shown an aptitude for local self-government which justifies them in demanding an extension of the same."

said that questions of purely Welsh concerns ought to be settled in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of Wales. There was high authority on both sides of the House and amongst statesmen of all sections that if there was to be a general devolution of business, Wales should come up for special treatment. The Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury,

"If ever there was a people who were a separate nationality it is the Welsh."

We also know that the Prime Minister of the Liberal party, Lord Rosebery, in a speech at Cardiff said—

"The more I see of our political system the more I am convinced of this that in a large measure of devolution, subject to Imperial control, lies the secret of the future working of the Empire."

He also said that he was strongly in favour, as essential to the well being of the United Kingdom, of "the systematised devolution of local business to the localities themselves." Apart from the testimony of such high authorities they had also the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. In one of his important speeches the right hon. Gentleman said

"Beyond and above a purely municipal organisation of this kind, I believe that a larger arrangement will be found safe and desirable, which, subject to the concurrent and supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament, the various portions of the United Kingdom shall be enabled to exercise a greater influence over local administration, and over legislation for their special needs and requirments. Such an arrangement, involving a delegation but not a surrender of power, and in which the subjects referred to local assemblies would be strictly defined, would probably be sufficient to satisfy the national aspirations of Scotland and Wales."

That speech was made after the right hon. Gentleman had become a Unionist. Reference must be made to the fact that the Unionist Government contemplated in 1888 doing something in this direction when the Local Government Bill of that year was introduced in this House. They then recognised that they ought to deal with the subject of District Councils, with the liquor question, and with other matters; but these subjects were not dealt with in the Bill because there was not sufficient time for their consideration. The limitations of time were then the sole excuse for not dealing with these subjects. Five years after the President of the Local Government Board in a Liberal Ministry brought in another incomplete Bill and the same excuse was made for so doing—that there was no time at the disposal of the House to consider a larger measure. On the 8th of May 1900, a debate was initiated in this House by his friend the Member for Carnarvon boroughs, and the resolution which that hon. Member submitted was seconded, not by a Liberal Member, but by a Welsh Member who sat on the other side of the House, the then Member for the Carmarthen boroughs. The resolution asked for the transfer of powers under the Local Government Act of 1888, section 10, to County Councils. The provision in section 10 of that Act was that the powers now vested in certain Government Departments should be put into operation. The only excuse for not adopting that provision was that then non-county Boroughs had placed obstacles in the way of its use. Now there was no non-county Borough in Wales, which placed any obstacle whatever in the way of the use of that provision. The Welsh County Councils and non-county Boroughs were unanimous in their desire for the adoption of this measure. Moreover, they claimed that it was expedient that the experiment of such a transfer should first of all be made in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, then President of the Local Government Board, offered to receive a deputation of a non-party character from the Welsh County Councils to discuss this matter. A joint Committee from the Welsh County Councils was formed to ask for the delegation of the powers referred to in the Act of 1888. The chairman was a Unionist. Now, in Wales, they had one authority dealing with a special question which afforded a lesson in self-government, and that was the way in which Secondary Education after the passing of Intermediary Education Act for Wales was governed. It must be remembered that this question was not legislated upon by a Liberal Government, but by a Unionist Government. When the Committee of Enquiry reported upon this question, what did they say? Their reasons for the separate treatment of Wales were first, the distinctive characteristics of Wales bearing upon its claim for special treatment in the matter of secondary and higher education. And secondly, the report laid stress on the "sentiment of nationality which in the construction of any system of education for the people cannot be ignored and ought not to be discouraged. This principle was recognised with regard to the bilingual difficulty which would give a special character to the question of the educational method in Wales, and on the existence of a religious question which had a marked bearing on the educational position of the country. "As the Leader of the House had said, in dealing with another aspect of the religious question, the atmosphere, the local colour and tone of the locality had to be taken into account. Every educationalist in the laud bore testimony that the county governing body appointed under the Intermediate Education (Wales) Act of 1889, charged with secondary education, was not only a model for England, but for Scotland. In fact, it was unique in Europe. What was it which made the system a success? The County organisations completed and given a unifying principle by the establishment of a central Welsh Board. The primary object was the constitution of a Welsh body—and this was a very important point—of a Welsh body which would be capable of undertaking the examination and inspection required by the Treasury, and which would avert the risk, incidental to the acceptance of State aid, that a rigid educational code would be imposed upon the now schools by an authority unfamiliar with the peculiar local circumstances of the people. When in June 1890, a deputation waited upon Mr. Goschen, now Lord Goschen, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to urge the adoption of some representative Welsh body as the agent of the Treasury for these purposes, that right hon. Gentleman, in a sympathetic reply, pointed out that the proposal seemed to imply a large surrender of responsibility by the Treasury to a body naturally interested in the success of schools; but he promised that the regulations which the Treasury were required by the Act to make for the purpose of testing the efficiency of the schools should be framed in concert with the Local Authorities. The difficulty indicated by Mr. Goschen was met by the interposition of the Charity Commissioners between the Treasury and the Welsh Board, We gladly bear in mind the work the Charity Commissioners have done for our Secondary Education System, but they did it in concert and in full sympathy with the local body of opinion. The constitution is a thoroughly popular and representative one, and we all know what a success it has been. We would merely say that such has been the democratic character of the education administered that more than 70 per cent. of the scholars in the secondary and county schools are drawn from the primary schools. It is a system thoroughly sympathetic with the tone, colour and aspirations of the Welsh people. But, in addition to that, we have questions all our own other than Education. The liquor traffic, the land and church questions. Although we believe in the general principle of disestablishment, we would not appeal for its application to England unless the majority of the English representatives had a mandate in favour of it. Wales has asked for it, and that being so we hold that Welsh disestablishment is purely a question for the Welsh people. We now urge upon the Government that the principle of Local Government which exists should be extended in order to deal with the several subjects interesting to the people of Wales and material to its welfare, with the promptitude which we all desire.

said it would be readily admitted that owing to the vigour of the Welsh Committee's spirit during the last twenty years it was necessary that they should be granted a larger measure of local self government. The proportion of local Bills which had been passed for Wales had been greater than that of any other portion of the United Kingdom outside the stronger brother England himself. They were bringing up a larger number of men from the country—work had to be done up here, and which had to be brought up, the expense of which had to be borne by the population of Wales; an expense far larger than that incurred by any other part of the United Kingdom; and he asked Welshmen on the Unionist side of the House to support the resolution because of the dire necessities of the case. It might be said that Wales wanted Home Rule and Separation. Wales would not accept separation if it were offered her, but the dire necessity of this reform could be proved. He asked for this small concession because of the great expense Wales was put to for business which had at present to be transacted at West-minister, when it was well known that when that business came before the House very little time could be spared to give it any attention at all. It was well known that if Welsh questions were to be in the future well and truly considered something would have to be done. Nobody would be right in suggesting that the Government could long continue to deal with Welsh questions in the present manner; they would be compelled to give consideration to local matters. Such consideration as was demanded could not be given in fifteen minutes; it sometimes took 6 or 7 hours to consider matters which it was well-known that half the number of people would consider more thoroughly in one-third of the time. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, as it was urgently necessary that some Authority should be created between Parliament and the County Councils to consider these questions.

said he did not think the House realised the case which had been raised, and therefore he desired to emphasize one or two points. It had become clear during the progress of the debate that this matter had not been approached in a party spirit; it was not a party question in the partizan sense of the word, as hon. Members would see when they came to examine the statements of statesmen on both sides of the House, an almost complete unanimity with regard to the question. In the second place, he thought there was a singular appropriateness in bringing forward the question at this time. It was perfectly obvious that the issue of the Government struggle in South Africa would mean in the long run a great addition to the Imperial responsibility of Parliament, and it was desirable in the highest sense that we should show our readiness even now to consider seriously and impartially any question which affected directly the improvement of the machinery of Parliament, and which made for a more effective Government of the Imperial interests of the country. Two or three Welsh questions had been mentioned in the course of the debate, and there was one in which the Welsh people took particular interest which would show the House the reasonableness of the claim they now made for the further extention of the power of managing their own affairs. There was the question of Temperance Reform. Parliament had already granted Wales one measure of Sunday Closing, but for many years the defects in the Act had rendered it in many parts of the country liable to abuse and evasion. A very short period would suffice to carry out very practically the two or three main recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1889 on the subject, and if two or three hours of serious consideration could be given by the House to the passing of an amending Bill, a step would be taken which would be of great moral force to the Principality. The people had desired it for years—there was no doubt about that point in Wales. Yet, owing to the congestion of business in the House, it was impossible for them under present conditions of Parliamentary life to hope to get that small but useful reform. Another point he wanted to emphasize was that, however urgent the necessity for the extension of Local Government might be in other parts of the country, the urgency in the case of the Principality of Wales was, if anything, greater for historic and other reasons. It had not been sufficiently emphasized that, owing to the characteristics of race, thought, language, and other things the Welsh were essentially different to their English and Scotch friends in certain matters. They felt differently on certain public questions of the day, and what would suit Wales would not suit other portions of the United Kingdom, and in those matters which did not in any way interfere with the supreme authority of Parliament Wales might reasonably be granted the extension which she asked. But the question was not only important from a Welsh standpoint, but also from the standpoint of Parliament and the country generally. It had more than once been said that Parliament had suffered in the eyes of the public; there was nothing of which the Welsh people were prouder than the Imperial Parliament, and he heartily endorsed the statement of the hon. Member of Rhonda Valley that the Welsh people would have nothing to do with separation; they bad done something towards building up the British Empire, and were not now by their policy going to show that they were changing their views in that essential matter. They did, however, claim that they had a right to say in what way the real dignity and honour of Parliament could be sustained, and they said they ought to have the rights they claimed because they believed if they did have them, the bonds between the Parliament and the Principality would be strengthened and not weakened. In conclusion, he thought they were putting before the Government a reasonable request, and although it might not be possible for Parliament at this moment to give them all they desired, he believed the day was rapidly approaching when the Resolution before the House would be the law of the land.

said he desired to add a few words to what had already been said on this question in the course of the debate. He regretted that they had not had any expression of opinion from those hon. friends who represented Welsh constituencies on the Unionist side of the House. The deplorable position of Wales in this matter was, that while they had a large number of measures brought at different times to the House, whatever the result of their action might be, they went away with the impression that all their talking had had no practical result on legislation. Nothing was more detrimental to the dignity of Parliament than for Constituencies to imagine that whatever their grievances may be they are received by stolid and unreasoning refusal in the House. There had been indeed, however, one exception to that rule, namely Intermediate Education. The success of that measure ought to encourage the other side of the House to believe that if the larger powers, which were now asked for, were granted, they would not be misused. He had been connected with the system of Intermediate Education from its initiation. It was originally passed largely through the pressure of hon. Member sitting near him, with the assistance of the right hon. Member for Dartford, and passed the House of Lords without opposition. It was brought into operation in Wales by a series of conferences, the members of which were distinguished. Welshmen, and one of the remarkable features of that system was that although many distinguished churchmen were members of the Central body, there had never but once been a difference or dispute from the beginning so far as religion or politics were concerned. The house was now asked to give a similar extension of powers with regard to other local public matters. He had for some years been Chairman of one of the County Councils of Wales, and he had also had as a member of the County Councils Association seen much of the working of English County Councils, and he noticed that Welsh and English Councils alike did their work without any political questions arising. They disregarded both religious and political questions, and as they did their work so admirably there was no reason why they should not be trusted with other work of a similar kind. Looking over some old papers a short time previously, he had been struck by the simple method by which such work had been done in Wales in olden times. He had found a curious agreement purporting to be entered into by "three of the chiefest" men in three different townships by which they agreed to a considerable diversion of a road in a neighbourhood with which he was well acquainted. It was only some hundred and fifty years since, and that diversion was carried out without any other authority by the three townships concerned without any interference from anybody whatever. Again, one of the Boroughs in the County in which he lived desired to have their own gas and water supply, and he was certain they could have provided from their own County Council a tribunal which could have transferred these undertakings to the municipality at one-third of the cost which they had been compelled to pay for legal and Parliamentary expenses. If that was so, why should they not be allowed to do it? At all events, it was only right to give them a chance of settling similar matters at their own door without the expense of having witnesses and counsel and surveyors and men of that kind brought up to London. Another reason why it should be done was that the more the citizens were trusted the better citizens they were likely to become. It was well known that the Local Governments of our great towns were the most valuable nurseries for men of business and for statesmen, and all that Wales desired was that that principle should be extended, and an opportunity given to a larger number of our fellow subjects to take part in public work, and learn the lessons taught from so doing. There were many hon. Members of the House who thought that this was the way to foster disloyalty. The way to foster loyalty was to allow the people to have their own way. Scotland was loyal because she had her own laws, because she had her own Church, because she had her nationality recognised, because, in short, she had her own way in everything, and rightly so. The result was they were loyal and always anxious to assist the Crown. If it was desired to have a loyal and contented Wales, then give them their own way. Wales was not separatist or disloyal. There was nothing of which Wales was more proud than of the fact that the Chancellor of the University was the Prince of Wales, and its Protector the King, and he desired the House to recognise that, loyal though the Welsh were, and ready to work for the glory of the Empire and the country, they believed that if the further concessions which they now asked for were granted it would increase and not decrease the loyalty which united Wales to the Empire.

It has been said that this Amendment is not couched in any party spirit. But surely an Amendment to the Address may generally be considered to be distinctly couched in a party spirit, because it is intended, if possible, to defeat the Government. With regard to the question before the House, however, my position is this: I am quite willing to see Local Government extended throughout the country, but I am not prepared to select one portion of the Kingdom for the experiment. We are told that this will be a benefit to Wales. Hon. members opposite had said that especially in matters affecting the Church, Education and Temperance, Wales would be benefited if this proposal were adopted. But how is it to be carried out? What exactly is the proposal? In what shape is this extended self-government to he given? Until we have definite information on these points, I, for one, feel it my duty to vote against the Amendment.

I wish to add a few words to what has been said so well by my hon. friends. We are asking for something for which there are plenty of precedents. In Canada there are no less than six or seven subordinate legislatures. If we look at our kinsmen across the sea, we find that in the United States, there are no less than 45 local legislatures.

They are not subordinate legislatures.

I understand that they are. Then, in Australia there are six subordinate legislatures. Therefore, our children have provided us with examples that it would be well for us to copy. Private business is increasing in this House year by year, and it is sure to do so, inasmuch as social conditions are altering year by year. How can we give any proper attention whatever to Imperial affairs, when our time is so much taken up with these local concerns? We say that this is the Imperial Parliament of the British Empire, but what time have we to give to any part of the Empire, when we cannot manage our own little affairs at home? This matter is getting more serious every year. As to the session before and probably most of the time will be taken up by questions of Procedure; what time, therefore, are we likely to have for the consideration of matters concerning Wales? There is our great Indian Empire. What time do we give to the consideration of Indian affairs? We give one day in the year. We have at the head of the Local Government Board a gentleman who has certainly treated some of us who have ventured to question him on matters of Local Government in a manner very different from that of some of his predecessors, and I hope the Government will give some more satisfactory reply to our demand than we have had in the past.

The motion as it stands upon the Paper is a suggestion as to the extension of Local Government in Wales, but it has certainly found considerable extension in the speeches which have been addressed to the House in its support. So far as the matter of the speeches is concerned, there has been little of a partizan character, but I entirely concur in the remark of my hon. and gallant friend behind me, that while the speeches may be non-partizan, it is idle to suggest that the motion is not of a party character, seeing that it is advanced, as we must assume it is, with the desire that it should be carried, and, if carried, would result in the displacement of the Government. The only alternative to that proposition is that it is proposed without the intention of being carried, if possible.

Accept it.

I do not think the hon. Member can quote a single instance in which a Government has ever accepted an Amendment to the Address.

Then make a precedent.

No; if we make a precedent it will be with some better object. Hon. Members have advocated a great many changes in the law, but they have not yet shown that Wales suffers any particular grievance as compared with the rest of the country. The speeches have ranged over a very wide area. There have been references to the rules of procedure, temperance legislation, Private Bill legislation, education, and the extension of the powers under the Act of 1888. With the last-named I will deal presently. We, on this side of the House, have certainly no reason to be dissatisfied with one feature of the debate. Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken with so much fervour on behalf of Wales have all united in praising two Acts of Parliament, the passing of which, they declare, have produced the best results. Those Acts are the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. One hon. Member, in pathetic accents, told us that Wales had always remained true to her old political faith. It must, indeed, be a sad thing for hon. Members, when they reflect on their faithfulness, to realise that the legislation to which they attach so much importance, they owe, not to the party to which they have been so faithful, but to the party to which they are opposed.

The Liberal Party educated you up to it.

:That is a suggestion of a perfectly friendly character, but it exists, I think, only in the imagination of the hon. Member. If the Liberal Party educated us up to the point of introducing and carrying legislation for Wales, all I can say is, it is a pity they did not carry it themselves when they were in office, instead of leaving it for us to do.

The Intermediate Education Act was a private Member's Bill, adopted by the Government.

I remember that very well, as I had something to do with the negotiations connected with the Bill. But there are hon. Members in the House now, representing Welsh constituencies, who have publicly, as well as privately, expressed their gratitude to the Government for the assistance they gave in passing that Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman stated that the only Acts to which we had referred as conferring benefit on Wales were the Local Government Act of 1888, and the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. I referred specifically, as did also other hon. Gentlemen, to the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, and that was carried under a Liberal Government.

I at once accept the hon. Member's statement, and I must correct myself by saying that two out of the three Acts which have been quoted as conferring benefits upon Wales, were, at all events, carried by the aid of Conservative Governments. Now what are the suggestions that are made? Certain kinds of legislation have been referred to. We are told that Wales requires temperance legislation. It is said that small amendments are required in the Sunday Closing Act. The mover of the Amendment complained that there was no reference to Wales in His Majesty's Gracious Speech. Does Wales take no interest in the Bill, announced in the Speech, for "amending the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, and for the registration of clubs"? Why should we be asked to accept the view that a measure of that kind will not benefit Wales as much as the rest of the United Kingdom? Then there is a very important measure mentioned "for improving the law of valuation. "Why are we to be asked to believe that an alteration in the law of valuation and assessments, lying as it does at the very root of the question of local taxation, and admitted by all acquainted with questions of Local Government, to be a matter of very great importance, would confer no benefit upon Wales? Except in regard to the Bill relating to London alone, and, in a modified degree, the Bill or Bills relating to education, I do not know on what grounds the Welsh Members are entitled to say that they will not participate in the benefits to be derived from the legislation announced in the King's Speech. We are told that it is very hard that a Welsh municipality, desiring to obtain Parliamentary powers for local purposes, should be obliged to come to this House. With regard to Private Bill Legislation, the question has been thoroughly discussed, and many years ago when I first came into the House it was considered a vexed question. The late Government dealt with this question in regard to Scotland, and I think they dealt with it in a very successful way. I sincerely hope that there will be a devolution of a similar kind which will save the time of the House. Hon. members declared that it is very hard that a Welsh municipality should be obliged to come to Westminster to carry out a local improvement, and agreed that the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act may be regarded as a precedent for devolution of a similar kind through the country generally, but there is no argument to justify this particular change in the case of Wales especially without extending it also to the North of England. The system has worked well in Scotland and I hope they may be regarded as a precedent for other parts of the country. But why is there to be a devolution of Private Bill business only in regard to Wales? Why should the people from the extreme north of England have to come here, and Parliament be asked to deal solely with Welsh Private Bill business? There is no argument I know of to justify these particular matters being dealt with specially for Wales and not for England and Wales. Then I come to the suggestion made that there should be what is called the corollary to the Acts of 1888. That in theory is excellent, but I do not think my hon. friend the Member for East Glamorganshire did justice to my right hon. friend who proceeded me in my office when he suggested that it was likely that he and his friends might receive more generous treatment from me than from my predecessor. It has been forgotten that my right hon. friend not only made an extremely sympathetic speech on this subject, but he also intimated his willingness to receive a deputation from Wales. He intimated in the course of the debate that he would be willing to receive a deputation from the County Councils of Wales, but no application was made to my right hon. friend for the purpose, and no deputation was received. Nevertheless, my right hon. friend showed his sympathy, and offered to receive a Welsh deputation in order that they might go into further detail. I had something to do with the passing of the Act in 1888, for I was under Secretary to the Local Government Board at that time, and I know the history of the passing of the Act of Parliament. I certainly believed at the time, and I am sure my right hon. friend, the present Secretary of State, who passed the Bill, most fully desired and intended that devolution to a very considerable extent should take place from the Government Department to the County Councils, and if there is any doubt as to this, proof is to be found in the fact that in 1889, the year following the passing of the Act of 1888, a Provisional Order for this purpose was prepared in the Department, and it proposed to devolve upon the County Councils various powers then and now held by the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and other Departments. That Provisional Order was included in a Bill which went to a Committee, but the Committee found that the opposition was too great for the Bill to have any reasonable chance of passing into law. We are told to-night that the Opposition no longer exists, because it sprung at the time from the non-county boroughs, and that in Wales the non-county boroughs do not entertain these views, and consequently there would be no opposition. What are the powers which it is sought to devolve? It is extremely difficult in practise to find powers outside those which have already been suggested, and it must be understood by hon. Gentlemen that in dealing with this subject I am not mixing it up with legislation for education or temperance. This is a proposal from a Government Department for the devolution of powers which they can hand over to the County Councils. The difficulty is that with many of these powers it is even harder to transfer them to County Councils than it was before the days of County Councils. Take, for instance, the case of sanctioning local loans. This is one matter for which in a minor degree there is great necessity for, and I am quite prepared to consider whether some powers of the kind cannot be conferred upon County Councils. I have no powers to transfer any powers from a Central Department to a Local Authority individually, as the law stands at present. We could issue a Provisional Order transferring powers from the Department to County Councils generally, but if we desire to devolve them severally, we should require additional legislation. I have heard nothing advanced to show that if devolution is practical in one case, it would not be practical and possible in another case. It may be that these powers are already enjoyed by one of the great bodies in London, and I am not going to suggest that this particular work might not be transferred to the County Councils. The Local Government Board will always have the duty cast upon it of protecting future ratepayers against suggestions which may not be entirely in their interests. That is not always an agreeable task, but I am perfectly willing to consider whether there may not be devolution in that respect. One of the duties laid upon County Councils is to issue Orders dealing with boundaries of parishes. It is quite obvious that the approval of those Orders cannot be devolved upon the County Councils by the Local Government Board, because it would be ridiculous to call upon the County Councils to make an Order and then ask them to sanction it, and it is clear that the approval must obviously be given by some other body. I am very much of opinion that the time has come when a great deal more power and greater independence might be given to the great Local Authorities. In this matter I speak for my colleagues in the Department who are so often abused and unjustly accused of a desire to interfere with the independence of Local Authorities, for I know that they would be very glad to be relieved of their responsibilities upon this question. Those who have watched the growth of these local bodies feel the development of Municipal Government in this country has been very rapid and very complete, and it is quite conceivable that there are many respects in which the control of the Department—which is very often but a nominal control—might be surrendered with advantage and greater independence given to Local Authorities. But if this is done it must be done in all cases and not in one alone, and I for one would not assent, to any proposal which made a distinction in the case of the Principality of Wales, and which was not also extended to the rest of the country. There is another of these proposals in which it is suggested that there should be some supervision of Poor Law Authorities within the county areas. That I confess I do not think is at all practical, because so far as you can make it it is desirable that the administration of poor law should be uniform, and the principles on which it is administered should not be different in the North from those obtaining in the South. If you hand over the supervision of poor law administration it means a great deal more than the taking care of paupers and providing for them. If you were to transfer this supervision from the Central Department to the County Councils you must get a variety of administration and a variety of system which I do not think in this particular case would be to the advantage of the community. I have only taken up two or three of these cases, but what I wish to point out is that in reference to the devolution of central duties the difficulties are not difficulties which arise from want of sympathy on the part of the Government; they are not difficulties which arise from red tape, or from a desire to hold Local Authorities unduly and unfairly in check. There are some real difficulties in administration which do not appear until the matter is considered from a practical point of view. I may say that I am quite willing to consider any further suggestions that any hon. Member may communicate to me upon this subject, and I shall be pleased to renew the promise which my right hon. friend made to receive a deputation upon this subject. I desire, however, to make it perfectly plain that I could not entertain any proposals which, if adopted, would lead to a differentiation between Wales and England, when the position of both countries in this matter is exactly the same. I have heard nothing said in this debate which would justify me in doing this. In regard to the land question and other subjects which have been referred to, they are matters to which we could not ever consent to deal with separately from various parts of the country. We say these are matters for settlement on the floor of this House, and we could not allow them to pass into the hands of any separate party in the United Kingdom, but in regard to those matters which are under the control of Government Departments, we stand on a totally different platform. I can only say, as my right hon. friend said before me, that I shall consider any practical suggestions that may be made to me.

said the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed an entirely wrong impression to the House when he stated that the two Bills he mentioned had been passed by the Conservative Government. He did not think he was going too far in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make political capital for his own party out of the statement. In regard to the Intermediate Education Act, what happened when that was before the House was this. A Departmental Committee, presided over by the late Lord Aberdare, reported in favour of some measure of intermediate education for Wales. The Welsh Members pressed the Conservative Government time after time to bring forward a measure, but the late Mr. W. H. Smith, who was the Leader of the House, did not assent. The hon. Member said the Conservative Government would not have thought of dealing with the question, had it not been for the fact that Mr. Stuart Rendel secured a place in the ballot, and introduced an Intermediate Education Measure for Wales, which the Government took up to get themselves out of a difficulty. The Government could claim no credit whatever for the passing of that measure. With regard to Private Bill procedure, a Scotch Measure was passed in 1899. That was supposed to be an experimental measure, and the system was to be extended. He introduced a measure last year dealing with Wales, on the lines of the Scotch measure, but not securing a favourable position in the ballot he got no help from the Government. He asked the Government to state frankly whether they were prepared to deal with Wales as a separate entity or not. The Welsh Members would like to know that, and then they would know the position in which they stood in regard to hon. Members on the other side. The cost of Private Bill legislation for Wales was vastly greater, in proportion to the population and wealth of the country, than was the case in England or Scotland.

said that, in regard to the delegation of powers now vested in Government Departments, the right hon. Gentleman the former President of the Local Government Board had treated Wales uncommonly well, and he was glad that the present holder of the office was prepared to follow on the same lines. He thought the clause in the Local Government Act of 1888, which enabled County Councils to unite in dealing with matters that could not very well be dealt with by a single County Council, might very well be extended. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the direction in which it could be done. He was glad to hear that some jurisdiction might be conferred on County Councils to deal with the matter. This was a difficult and expensive business to deal with at present He was making no complaint against the Local Government Board. If a little local district or parish council applied for sanction, an inspector might be sent down after several weeks; he reported, and it took several weeks more to get an official of sufficient standing to consider the report. The only way to deal with these matters was to refer them to the County Councils themselves. In regard to boundaries, it was said that a County Council could not sit to hear an appeal against its own decisions, but there was nothing to prevent a group of County Councils from sitting in judgment on the action of any individual Council on a question of boundaries. That was infinitely better than getting a man down from London to settle the matter for them. It was a small matter. It only affected counties themselves. There was no danger of disintegration of the Empire from a group of County Councils considering a question of boundaries or local loans. The right hon. Gentleman might expect that his promise to receive a deputation would be availed of very soon. He understood that the right hon. gentleman did not challenge the principle of differentiation in the legislative treatment of Wales. It would, he thought, be admitted that there might be matters upon which the House could legislate specially for Wales which would not be applicable to the rest of the kingdom. He singled out the questions of education and temperance, wherein Parliament had accepted the principle that Wales was not in the same position as the rest of the country. The principle of differentiation being admitted, ought the special legislation of Wales to be passed by the Imperial Parliament or by a local Assembly? In Wales they had had repeated Royal Commissions which had come to the conclusion that the state of public opinion in regard to temperance was more advanced than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that the people were prepared for legislation on the subject. The only question was, should this be put into operation by Acts carried by the Imperial Parliament, or would it not be better to delegate purely Welsh questions affecting Wales alone to a local Assembly. The Amendment was in favour of a local Assembly, and that had, in principle, been assented to by the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary was right from a purely business point of view. The Imperial Parliament had not time to attend to a hundredth part of the business waiting its attention. There was more demand for legislation now than there used to be twenty or thirty years ago. At that period they would not have dreamt of legislating for a tenth of the questions now debated in the Imperial Parliament. He had been looking at the record of Lord Palmerston's administration. That Prime Minister had just three or four stock measures which he introduced into the Queen's Speech. One was the reform of the law of bankruptcy, another was the reform of the law relating to the transfer of land, and a third was the reform of the law of the representation of the people, and the codification of all laws. Now, the reform of the law of land transfer was carried only two or three years ago; the law of bankruptcy was not dealt with by Lord Palmerston, nor was the codification of all laws. These were merely stock measures brought into the Queen's Speech as padding. What was the state of things now? They had got, as Lord Rosebery had said, the most jejune King's Speech ever issued by any Ministry, but it was full of measures which were controversial and would take a great deal of time to discuss. But they were all Bills dealing with special questions and referring to particular nationalities and particular parts of the United Kingdom. The first was a proposal for the co-ordination of primary and secondary education in England, in which Scotland and Ireland had no interest. [An Hon. Member, "Why not?"] He assumed that they were the same Bills introduced last year. If the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill applied to Scotland, he would modify his argument. But even if it did apply to Scotland, the part affecting that country would differ from that affecting England, and the part affecting Wales would differ from that affecting England, because the whole basis of education was different in these countries. When the Scotch part of the Bill came on, judging by former experience, the majority of Members would leave it to be discussed by the Scotch Members who understood their own interests. When they came to Welsh education, how many English Members were there who had taken any trouble to study their secondary education in Wales and the way it was carried on? He remembered last year, when everyone admitted that the Welsh system was a good one, but a Member of the Government got up and would interfere with it, and when the time to vote came on Members who had never heard the debate trooped into the House from the lobbies and the smoking-room to vote against the Amendment which had been supported by all the Welsh Members who understood the whole system. He asked the House to leave secondary education entirely to Wales. They had administered the system in a way never complained of by any Churchman, and it was admitted that the Nonconformist majority had never used their power tyranically. The reason why the primary system of education in Wales was a failure was that it was not adapted to Welsh needs, the Welsh temper, or Welsh ideals. He asked whether there was anything revolutionary in pleading that the whole of their educational system should be handed over to the Welsh people. He came to the question of temperance. Temperance was particularly a question of the habits of the people. What did it matter to anybody outside Wales what they drank, whether whisky or water? They had had evidence before Royal Commissions that the demand was practically unanimous in Wales for legislation on Sunday Closing, and some thing on the lines of local option. Temperance legislation was particularly legislation on which they must proceed by experiment. No one could say that any specific would succeed in any part of the country. The worst of the present system was that a Bill might be carried to-day, and they might find, from a short experience, all sorts of defects in it; but, owing to the proceedings in Parliament, the amendment of these defects was postponed for a whole generation. That was the case with the Sunday Closing Act, The defects were admitted, and they had been trying to get through, little Bills to amend them. The Commission appointed by the Unionist Government recommended the amendments, but they could not be passed, because the Imperial Government had no time. The hon. Member for Peckham would come in after 12 o'clock, just take off his hat, and there was an end of it. There was more power in the hat of the hon. Member for Peckham than in the whole of the Welsh constituencies. That was reducing our Parliamentary system and our Constitution to an absurdity. Questions which affected the Welsh people alone ought to be left to them to settle. Where was the danger? What harm would there be in that? Did any one suggest that it would damage the Empire? In the United States there were forty-five States, each of which had full power to deal with local questions. In Canada there were seven provincial legislatures dealing with purely local matters, and yet Canada was a very powerful Federation. The Canadian Premier claimed that Canada had become a nation since we gave it local self-government, and that it had taken more practical interest in the affairs of the Empire and contributed greater strength to the Empire since we gave it more local self-government than the Welsh people asked. He asked the Government to leave to Welsh people such purely local questions as education, temperance, and church disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman asked what grievance Wales suffered from that every other part of the United Kingdom did not suffer from? Could the right hon. Gentleman point to a single measure which was demanded by four-fifths of the representatives of England which had been refused by the votes of the representatives of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales? When he did that, then he could say that Wales did not suffer from any grievance that other parts of the kingdom did not suffer from. They came there with a grievance, and did not get an opportunity of discussing it. Ten times more time was devoted to the affairs of South Africa in that House than there was of talking about our own affairs. Parliament was concerned with affairs in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. It was an Imperial Parliament. How was it possible, with affairs involving hundreds of millions of people, that the local concerns of a small people like the Welsh should receive fair and adequate treatment? They did not complain that that arose from indifference, from callousness, or from a desire to oppress. That was not their contention. What they said was that the thing was impossible, and that the machine was breaking down. The King's Speech proved it. There was hardly a measure mentioned in it that did not apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. There was the Education Bill, the London Water Bill, the Bill for the Sale and Purchase of Land in Ireland and the Bill for improving the Law of Valuation. No Bill to improve the law of valuation could be drafted which should not be different for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Then there was the Intoxicating Liquor Bill and the Registration of Clubs Bill, which would require different provisions for Wales, and he believed for Ireland and Scotland as well. The only matter that seemed to apply to the United Kingdom was the Bill to amend the law of lunacy. Lunatics had the same characteristics in all four countries. After all, even one Bill occupied a long time. There were constant complaints that the legislation that was passed was crude and imperfect, and that it led to endless litigation. The point he ventured to put to the House was that the result of the present system was, that a man who really desired a Bill to pass and to be rendered effective never took part in the debate. It was only the men who wished to destroy a Bill and make it ineffective who debated it. Hon. Members opposite had been in opposition, and they realised the truth of what he said. There was no use in concealing it from themselves. Hon. Members on both sides had been doing it. If a Bill were a bad Bill he himself would do his very best to destroy it. Hon. Members opposite would act similarly. What was the result? The man who wanted to make a Bill strong and effective never took part in its discussion and moved no Amendments, because that would take up time, and he left the opponents of the measure to discuss it and make it worthless. He would instance the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That was a Bill demanded by millions of workmen throughout the country. It was a good Bill in principle, and he and several of his hon. friends supported it. But the Colonial Secretary practically appealed to them, and said that if they wanted to carry the Bill they should not move too many Amendments. He did not complain of that. It was perfectly right. But what was the result? Amendments were left to hon. Members who wanted to wreck the Bill. There were several defects in it which were obvious to any man who knew what an Act of Parliament should be, and the Bill went through crude and imperfect, as bad a piece of legislative work as ever passed the House of Commons, and it had led to endless appeals, purely and simply because the Imperial Parliament could not give more than a fortnight to discuss a matter which involved the safety of millions throughout the country. If the Imperial Parliament could not attend sufficiently to a Bill affecting millions in the United Kingdom, how could a poor little country like Wales expect full and fair treatment for its Bills? That showed that the whole machinery was breaking down. He felt as certain as any man could be that if the Imperial Parliament had been attending to its own Imperial affairs and nothing else, they would not have had the present disaster in South Africa. It was not within human power that they could attend to their own little affairs and at the same time attempt to govern 400,000,000 of people. No other Assembly in the world attempted it. It was not attempted in Germany, in the United States, in Austria, or in any other country which had an effective Parliamentary machine, and it had hopelessly broken down in England. He asked the House of Commons, instead of trying to tinker with its own rules, to deal generously with the matter. Any attempt to improve the rules would only make things worse. Their present difficulty was that they could not discuss matters affecting their own constituencies. How could that be removed by further curtailing power of discussion? The only way to deal with the matter was to extend the power of self government to Wales, to Scotland, to Ireland, and to such parts of England as required it, in the same way as that power has been extended to the Colonies. If the Colonists worked that system well, they could surely trust their people at home to do the same.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has moved the adjournment of the debate on behalf of the hon. Member who is to move the official opposition Amendment to the Address. It would be more convenient to keep that until Monday, and it would be absurd to begin it to-night. Therefore I will not resist the motion.