was glad that this Bill had been brought forward at an hour at which it could be discussed. To understand it properly it was necessary to bear in mind the provisions of the Act of 1890. Under that Act the police in England and Wales received better treatment with regard to pensions than any other class of Civil servant. A policeman who becomes incapacitated, and has not served for fifteen years, gets a gratuity on a medical certificate, and after fifteen years service, on a medical certificate of infirmity of mind or body, he gets a pension. After twenty-five years, without any medical certificate at all, he becomes entitled under that Act to retire on a pension. Two pension scales are laid down by the Act—a maximum scale, which gives a pension equal to two-thirds of the officer's pay, after twenty-six years service, and a minimum scale, which gives a pension equal to two-thirds pay after thirty-five years service. The reason for having two scales was that in large cities and towns the labours of the police were more irksome than in country places. Parliament trusted the local authorities to give effect to that principle. Again, the local police authorities were empowered to fix an age for retirement, which was not to be below fifty, or over fifty-five, the object being to meet the varying conditions of service. But how had the Act worked out in practice? The police possessed a very powerful organisation, which had so acted upon the local authorities that he believed in every case the maximum scale had been adopted, whilst no age limit for retiring was fixed, so that every policeman was entitled to retire after twenty-six years service. A policeman was appointed probably at the age of nineteen or twenty, and retired in full manhood, at forty-six and forty-seven years of age. In Scotland it was different. A man did not become entitled to his full two-thirds pay pension until he had completed thirty-four years service, and had reached the age of fifty-five, or, in the case of rank above a sergeant, sixty. Recently Scottish policemen complained that they did not enjoy the superior conditions obtaining in England, and a Bill was brought in to put them on an equal footing. The Bill was remitted to a Select Committee but the local authorities strongly pressed on the Committee the desirability of leaving them no discretion in these matters, as they feared that the pressure they would be subjected to from police organisations would result in the maximum practically becoming the minimum, as had proved the case in England. There was another aspect of this question which should not be lost sight of, and that was the increasing burden on the local rates. The pensions were paid out of a permanent fund, made up of from three sources, two of which were practically stationary—the Exchequer grant, the local fund contributed to by fines appropriated by Statute for the purpose—and the contributions of the men. The latter was a comparatively small item, for, although the pensions paid in 1902 amounted to £433,752, the contributions of the police, representing 2½ per cent, of their wages, totalled only £64,681, and, even if those contributions should in future years aggregate a larger sum, the burden on the fund would be proportionately heavier. The deficiency which had to be made up out of local rates in 1901 was £78,909, increasing in 1902 to £93,607 or 18 per cent. Seeing that the Act had only been in operation fourteen years, and that, according to actual calculations, it will take about thirty years to reach the high-water mark of expenditure, it was apparent that the burden on local rates would be considerably heavier. The question was a serious one. The local authorities were themselves to blame, for they had failed to carry out the intentions of Parliament, and were allowing policemen to retire at forty-six or forty-seven years of age, on a full pension. Such a state of affairs was never contemplated by Parliament. The ratepayers were overburdened with rates for police pensions in order that men might retire at forty-six years of age in the enjoyment of a pension for life equal to two-thirds of their salaries. It was not the fault of Parliament, as the Act gave the local authorities power to discriminate; the local police authorities alone were to blame for having allowed themselves to be pressed in the matter. These men, having obtained their pensions, either took a licensed house or competed in the labour market with the men who had to pay the rates out of which the pensions were provided. If the principle of the Bill were accepted, every other pensioner in the State would quote it as a precedent, and claim the same rights as were accorded to policemen. The real remedy lay in the hands of the local authorities without any interference from Parliament. The existing schemes would have to be observed with regard to the men who engaged under them, but new scales could be adopted to take effect forthwith, and so the difficulty would be got over. The Bill would enable local authorities, on the plea that it was an economy to the rates, to keep men on, giving them half-pay in addition to their pensions, instead of bringing in fresh men. The proposal was conceived simply in the interests of the superior officers of the force who desired to continue in the service at increased pay. The men who continued in the service might begin at half-pay, but it would not be long before the contention was put forward that the pensions were deferred pay and ought to be paid at once, and that if the men did the work they ought to receive the proper wage, in addition to their pensions. One, local authority would be pressed to give half-pay, another two-thirds, and another the full wage, and then all local authorities would be driven to adopt the same course. Organisations of every kind were formed in this country to promote their own interests, and attempts were made to rush Bills of this kind, and this was just the sort of Bill he had had his eye on from the first. He submitted that the Bill ought to be remitted to a Select Committee in order that the circumstances of the whole country might be ascertained, with reference both to the present as well as to the probable future cost of the police. If the Government would agree to that course the Bill would have served a useful purpose, because it would enable local authorities to realise their exact position.

said that so far from increasing the liabilities of county councils and local authorities, the Bill would have a tendency to diminish them, because men who now took their pensions because they feared the possibility of losing them if they continued in the service, would not, if the Bill were passed, have the occasion for leaving. Under the provisions of this Bill they would be able to continue in the service without running any of the risks of forfeiture which were contained in the present Police Act, and the conditions of forfeiture were not to apply after a man became entitled to a pension if he decided to continue in the service. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark with regard to men being paid their pensions and half-pay seemed to be a little bit absurd. A man would not serve unless he got his proper pay, which was much in excess of his pension.

said his point was that, according to the arrangements, a policeman was to have his pension and in addition half-pay, which, together, would be more than his ordinary pay.

said this was not in the Bill at all, and it was hardly likely that any local authority would take such a course, because, after forty-eight years of age, a policeman was not worth as much as a younger man except in the upper ranks. Formerly they could not pension constables until a much greater age, and he was very much surprised, as a county administrator, to find how considerable was the number of men who were practically cripples and past work who, as soon as the Police Act of 1890 was passed, very properly came on to the pension list. He was in favour of the Bill, under which there would only be forfeiture of pension when a policeman committed a criminal offence, or an offence more or less criminal, and the ordinary petty offences against discipline would not entail the forfeiture of pensions.

thought some explanation of this Bill ought to be given by the Government; as for the Bill being in the direction of economy he did not think that was so. If a constable gave further service after his pension was fixed under this Bill, he would be able to take his full pension and no deduction would be made from it as was the case at the present time. There appeared to be little snares in this Bill which ought to have some explanation from the Government.

desired very cordially to support the Bill. He had been struck many times with the large number of men leaving the police force at an age when they were never better fitted for service to the country, and he was prepared to say that many of those men would prefer to remain in the force were it not that, having served the number of years which entitled them to a pension, they felt the risks of remaining in the force, subject to the accidents which might affect their pension, were too great and they consequently retired. He would like to put before the Government the desirability of amending the Bill by raising the number of years a policeman had to serve. It would be unfair to attempt that with reference to the present members of the force, because they entered the service upon the understanding that after twenty-five years they would be entitled to a pension. But in the case of all recruits he suggested that the number of years service entitling a man to a pension should be raised by at least five years. He would be the last to suggest anything likely to interfere with the character or efficiency of the police force, of which he felt proud. There was no lack, however, of recruits—in fact, the whole country-side was cleared of its best men, because of the desire to enter the force. He was constantly asked to recommend men from the country. If the conditions of increased service were exacted from all recruits it would not prevent a sufficient number being forthcoming to maintain the efficiency of the force. Hard as it was to lose the flower of their manhood in the country for the police force a condition should not exist which withdrew from the soil men to a greater extent than was necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of the police force. Another grievance felt by the people was that after a police constable retired from the force he often felt he must continue to work, and be engaged in business or applied for a situation in competition with other men who had had to remain in the country districts all their lives. That was unfair competition, and from that point of view also he thought the age should be raised with a view to restricting the number of men leaving the force. What he had suggested might, moreover, militate against the burden of the pension fund which was becoming very serious. He should support the Bill because he thought it would do great good. It would retain in the force men who, by experience, were better able to carry out their duties than they had been at any period of their lives. He would go further and raise the age limit of all recruits entering the force. Possibly such a step would not interfere with the efficiency of the force, and it would save the country from an unjust drain upon the healthy manhood which was so much required in every part of business life and especially in argicultural districts.

said he entirely agreed with the statement made by the hon. Member for Tavistock as to what the effect of this Bill would prove to be. He had listened with great interest to the statement of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and he could not see that he had any particular quarrel with his general statement. He had described the Act of 1890 with considerable accuracy, but as far as he could gather he did not deal at all with the Bill now before the House except incidentally. The hon. Member had pointed out what was the difference in Scotland with regard to pensions, and he had shown that a pension could not be earned in Scotland except by a medical certificate. The hon. Member took considerable credit for being the only Scotch Member who resisted the attempts being made to place the Scotch police force on the same footing as the English. The result was that the Scotch police force who were equally deserving had to suffer, because instead of getting their pensions automatically after twenty-five years service they must obtain a medical certificate, or serve until they were fifty-five years of age. He did not think the Scottish police owed any debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark for his action in this matter. The police pension funds had been growing every year, and the amount was increasing at such a rate that it became a matter for serious consideration. The question was only indirectly dealt with in this Bill. He shared with the hon. Member his desire for reasonable economy upon this question. With regard to the proposals made by West Sussex, it did not come under this Bill, but it was a scheme which had been carried out at Liverpool where they had fuller powers. Under the West Sussex scheme the proposals were not on all fours with the proposals under this Bill. Under the Act of 1890 a police constable had the right to obtain his pension after twenty-five years service. After that he might make any other arrangement he liked and there was nothing in this Bill that would affect that right.

said that a constable coming from Plymouth might go over to Dover and he would take his pension with him, but the Plymouth people might suspend his pension so long as he held office there. That was the law at the present time, but under the present Bill when a constable went from Plymouth to Dover he would not be liable to any withdrawal or deduction in regard to his pension.

said that in the case of a police constable having taken his pension after twenty-five years service and joining another Police Force it fell to the Watch Committee of that Force to make what bargain they liked. On this point the Bill did not affect the existing law as regards his relations with the pensioning authority.

said his point was that under the existing law there was power in regard to the pension for past services which he had earned under the law of 1890, for the local authority or the Watch Committee could reduce him if he got another appointment, but this Bill did away with that power.

said the police pensions were creating a burden, and a very serious burden, upon the rates. The annual contribution from Imperial sources to counties and boroughs was £150,000 per annum. In addition to that 2½ per cent, was taken off the pay of the policemen, and the rest was made up from the rates. The total expenditure in 1902 in England and Wales was £434,737. There was an annual excess of expenditure over income of £93,627. Any suggestion that could be made which would lessen this growing burden was worthy of the consideration of the House. He thought he could assure the House that this Bill, in a small way, would produce that result. If they added to the expenditure of the counties and boroughs in England and Wales the London expenditure, amounting to £406,448, the annual deficiency was £170,000. That showed this was a very serious matter. The statutory scale for pensions under the law as it at present stood was as follows: (a) For fifteen years completed (but less than twenty-one) with a medical certificate, not more than one-fiftieth, and not less than one-sixtieth of his annual pay for each year of approved service; (b) for twenty-one years completed (but less than twenty-five) with a medical certificate, not more than twenty-fiftieths and not less than twenty-sixtieths for each year up to twenty, and not more than two-fiftieths, and not less than two-sixtieths for each year above twenty; and (c) for twenty-five years and upwards, without any medical certificate, not more than thirty-one-fiftieths and not less than thirty-sixtieths, and not more than three-fiftieths, and not less than one-sixtieth for each year above twenty-five, the maximum not to be exceed two-thirds. The pension was, of course, calculated on his pay at the time of retirement. What were the objects aimed at by the Bill now before the House? In the first place it was a permissive Bill. The police authority might, or might not, take advantage of its provisions. Did the hon. Member object to that? It surely was a right thing that a police authority, if they wished to retain the services of a good police constable, who was in good health, and physically capable, should be able to hold out some inducement which would, at the same time, have the effect of lessening the burden on the rates. But the policemen at present felt insecurity of tenure. A man who had earned his pension was afraid that if he committed some small offence in respect of discipline he might be dismissed ipso factoand lose the pension he had earned. That was a bar which prevented many excellent men continuing in the service. What the Government hoped was that arrangements would be made by the police authority to guarantee that a man, after twenty-five years service, should, if he continued in the service, receive his pension without having it reduced for mere breaches of discipline. He would only lose the right to it for the serious offences mentioned in Section 8 of the Act of 1890, namely, (a) conviction of a criminal offence and sentence to penal servitude, or more than three months hard labour, or more than twelve months imprisonment without hard labour; (b) association with thieves or reputed thieves; (c) refusing to assist police in detecting crime, apprehending criminals, and suppressing disturbances; (d) carrying on illegal occupation, or occupation in which improper use is made of the man's former position as a police officer. But if he had not committed any of these offences his right to pension should be, so to say, earmarked so that it could not be taken away from him. That would give him security of tenure which would be of the greatest value. This would result, he hoped, in keeping a good many men in the service. These proposals had been considered by many of those who were most competent to give advice on the subject. The police authorities held a conference in 1898, and it was largely on the experience they had brought to bear on the subject, and the recommendations they offered, that this Bill was drafted. They urged the Secretary of State—

"To provide that, if a constable remains in a force after the date upon which he becomes entitled to a pension, such constable shall not be liable to forfeit such pension, or to have it reduced except for some offence mentioned in Section 8 of the Act of 1890."

The Bill, if carried, would permit the police authorities to induce specially selected men to continue in the service. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1890 they were still liable to dismissal for breach of discipline, but under Section 8 they could only lose their pension for serious offences. In his opinion the Bill would add considerably to the efficiency of the force, and it would reduce the rates, because more men would continue to serve after twenty-six years. A man who had gained all that experience was, for certain purposes, exceedingly valuable, but he would not during the time of his additional service be earning further pension. If a man was allowed to take his pension and go, it would be necessary to engage a fresh constable, and for three or four years while gaining experience he was practically of little use in the force. The result of the present proposal would be advantageous in two ways. It would be possible to retain a man in the service without increasing his pension, and it would not be necessary to employ a young and inexperienced constable. He hoped the House would agree to the Second Beading of the Bill. If the details required adjustment, though he did not think that was the case, that could be done in the Committee on Trade to which he hoped the Bill would be sent.

said this was an example of a class of Bill of which there had already been two or three, and which were wrong in principle. Of course it was right that the police of the country should be, to some extent, under the Home Office, as it was necessary that the Home Office should be responsible for their efficiency. But it was not necessary that the Home Secretary should prescribe every detail as to years of service or systems of tension and other similar matters. Such arrangements, when they were applied indifferently to all districts tended towards extravagance. He thought a certain latitude might be allowed to local authorities to prepare schemes, and to provide themselves with an economical police force—greater latitude than was permitted under the Acts now in force. It was the sense of the oppressive burden that fell on localities which had probably induced the Government to bring forward this Bill. It would effect a small economy. It would however, only go a short way in that direction. He thought the House should consider in connection with the Acts of 1890 and 1893 whether this subject should be nibbled at, and whether it would not be better to deal with it in a comprehensive piece of legislation. There would be no great difficulty in doing this. No one would suggest that the men now in the force should be deprived of anything, but new men were constantly being brought in, and he thought a Bill could be passed to give local authorities power to prepare schemes for themselves which would conduce to economy. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had carried out a scheme by which a great economy was being effected in connection with the Irish police. The right hon. Gentleman had arranged for a system of progressive reductions in recruiting, which, in five or six years, would amount to no less than £250,000. That had been done without the slightest injustice to a single man in the force. He had put down a blocking Motion with respect to this Bill, but he would not move it if he received from the hon. Member a promise that the suggestion he had made would be considered.

indicated dissent.

said the hon. Member shook his head. He hoped, however, the hon. Member would give some attention to his Amendment when the next stage was reached. A strong feeling of injustice was felt by the members of the police force in London because parts of their pay and emoluments came under heads which prevented them counting for pension. It seemed to him to be a mean thing for the authorities to give a fixed and permanent increase of pay in a form which would be open to this objection. It had created a great deal of discontent and considerable litigation in the administration of the police law in many parts of the country. The case of an officer, who had served in the House of Lords for several years, and who had received during all that period an increase of 7s. a week in pay, had been the subject of litigation. This officer found, when he came to retire, that this substantial part of his emoluments did not count for pension. The final decision was against him, but in the Appeal Court, as well as in the lower Court, the judges expressed great sympathy with his difficulties. Surely this was a very questionable system. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would consider this point fairly. He was not against the principle of the Bill, nor did he think anybody was against it, as all should be willing to adopt any expedient which would promote economy. He thought it would be far better for the Government to withdraw this Bill and bring in a broader measure dealing with the whole question. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that there were defects in it. He thought the House ought to be indebted to his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries for showing that no provision was made for the case of a man who had qualified for a pension and then served for a single year, but after that removed into a new district. These defects would affect materially the economic working of the measure if passed into law.

said he agreed with his hon. friend in his criticism that there was something in the mode of calculating service for pension which was not what it ought to be. But that was not a reason for opposing the Bill altogether. The same remark applied to the criticism of the late Attorney-General. The case for the Bill was a very simple one. Local authorities, he knew, desired, as a matter of economy, to retain the services of constables whose training had been paid for by them, but who took their pension as soon as it was due, because they believed that their pension might be imperilled, by staying on, if they committed a small offence. He thought the Bill would tend to economy on the part of the local authorities and would remedy an injustice.

said that he had had a good deal to do with the passing of the Bill of 1890, which he knew had imposed a burden on the ratepayers. But that Bill had, nevertheless, been very beneficial to the public, because it had induced a very improved class of recruits to come into the police service, especially in London. The hon. Member opposite asked for whose benefit the present Bill had been conceived? It was conceived in the interests of the police force. The hon. Gentleman stated that many men, entitled to their pension under the Act of 1890 took it because they thought they might be deprived of it for a very small offence. But, under the first section of the Act of 1890, it was provided that a constable was not to be pensioned unless he had served twenty-five years; although the minimum age had been left optional to be fixed by the local authority. Very few local authorities had adopted a minimum age, because otherwise they could not attract good and capable men into the service. The point raised as to service in another police force was worthy of consideration, but it would apply in very few cases indeed, because local authorities would be very chary of engaging men who had earned a pension in another force, for these men would naturally be of considerable age, except in very exceptional circumstances. The case of the late chief constable of the police force of Liverpool being engaged as Chief Commissioner of the City Police was quite exceptional, and did not come within the purview of the Bill before the House, which dealt with the police force as a whole. It was unquestionable that many men who had done street duty for twenty-five or twenty-six years were unfit to continue that duty, but there were many employments in the police to which they might be put; and it was a very great pity indeed that, under the provisions of the Act of 1890, the services of such men, of considerable ability, should be lost to the public the moment they were entitled to draw their pensions. He was quite sure that this Bill, if passed, would conduce to economy and to the interest of the public; and that it would be welcomed by the police themselves. It was not necessary in this Bill to deal with the question of allowances; but he might say that there were many allowances in the police force which were purely temporary such as lodging allowances, or allowance for duty at the Houses of Parliament.

said he excluded all these, and only dealt with permanent allowances.

said that he misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. There would be considerable difficulty in including all allowances in pension rates. He had great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, and he thanked the Government for having introduced it.

said he had two things to say about this Bill. It was rather extraordinary that they should be discussing such a measure at all at this time. They were approaching the end of the first part of the Parliamentary session, when the public business was supposed to be of the most valuable character. Mr. Gladstone used to say that of all the time of the House of Commons, the early part of the session was the most valuable, and should be devoted to the most important public business. At this period the Government usually called upon them to discuss the most important part of their legislative programme. He did not know whether this Bill was the Government's most important measure, but it belonged to the class of Departmental Bills which were usually dealt with at the close and not at the beginning of the session. Did the Government mean by bringing forward this Bill that they had no other important business, or did it mark the close of the session or the close of this Parliament? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"; and ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] He wanted to know what it meant, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite who sneered at his remark could throw any light on the question, they on that side would be greatly obliged to them. This was one of a class of Bills which were rapidly causing suspicion in the minds of the working people of this country. It was a Bill to give pensions to a particular class, and he was bound to make his protest against it. At the last election he told his constituents that he would not assent to any Bill giving new pensions without having the whole subject of pensions raised. The House ought not to be asked to continue to increase pensions to a small and limited class when the great question of general pensions had not been disposed of. They never heard of old-age pensions now; but they did hear of pensions to small and limited classes of the population. He was unwilling to assent to this Bill until the House had before it what the whole burden of pensions was to be. Would the hon. Member in charge of the Bill tell them what was the total amount that would fall on the public funds for police pensions?

This Bill deals only with England and Wales.

said yes, but it dealt with public expenditure. It was, he continued, relevant to ask what was the whole cost of pensions given in the public service? Could any Gentleman on the Treasury Bench say how many millions the country had to pay? That question was relevant because every pension given to a policeman or any other official was a burden on the class who had been fooled for years with old-age pension schemes. Was the country paying £12,000,000 in pensions? It was difficult to discover the exact amount, but he hoped that some member of the Government would tell them before this Bill was passed.

I shall be happy to obtain the information the hon. Gentleman asks for.

I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

said that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated a view which was rapidly increasing in political circles generally, namely, that the worst way to obtain old-age pensions for all was to give pensions to the few. The reception now given to the Bill was accordingly not as great as that given to it a few years ago. There were several reasons for that. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield was keenly interested in the measure before the House, and he indicated that the object of the Bill was to remove a genuine grievance under which the police force of the country suffered, and the hon. Member particularised that grievance by describing it as insecurity of tenure. The young men in the police force were, however, against this Bill; and the old men were not particularly enthusiastic in favour of it. The insecurity of tenure of which the police justly complained was not due to causes which the Bill hoped to remove, but was due to the fact that a civilian force, who should be controlled by men of judicial minds, was being rapidly militarised and governed on bureaucratic lines. If hon. Members doubted his word, let them ask a policeman. The debate also indicated a great diversity of view as to what were the conditions of service which made the police force with its relatively good pay and pension not so popular as it ought to be. The men believed that the Bill would lead to favouritism for the higher officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield indicated that in his speech. The Bill catered more for the men from sub-divisional inspectors upwards than from sub-divisional inspectors downwards. The man who ought to be helped was the man in the street who could never hope to get beyond the rank of sergeant. He had nothing but unqualified praise for the way in which the police did their work. He testified to the full as to their efficiency, zeal, and capacity. With all its defects it was the best police force in the world; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had his way he would spoil it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to militarise everything and everybody. The Bill would enable men to leave the force at the end of twenty-five years service. Why? Not because they were afraid, if they remained on, that they might commit some serious act of insubordination which would forfeit their pension. The Bill would enable men to continue after twenty-five years without any danger of their pension being forfeited, except by a criminal act; but the men would not remain unless the entire system of police administration were altered. Take the case of a police constable who was a teetotaller and who had a superior officer who was not; or a constable who was against betting and a superior officer who betted. This Bill would enable such a man after twenty-five years of loyal and honest service to be entitled to his pension and remain in the force for another three or four years. That was the only good point in the Bill. Without it a brutal or vindictive superior might report a man with twenty-four years and eleven months service for some trivial cause and thereby deprive him of the pension to which he had partly contributed. The Bill would protect efficient and honest policeman from harsh treatment. The ideal system of treating the police force would be to adopt the Scottish system. He himself thought that the country had too many police. Ireland was now paying £40,000 less for police than it did a few years ago, which showed that the protests of the Irish Members were justified. In London, in his opinion, there were 2,000 more police than were required. He would apply the wages of that surplus number to increasing the pay of the men up to the rank of sergeant. The Bill did not now get the sympathetic reception it received a few years ago, because ex-inspectors and men of higher rank who were on pension were the heads of huge blackmailing societies, the nauseous details of the proceedings of which were to be seen in the newspapers. These men placed at the disposal of these semi-criminal agencies an experience which ought not to be allowed to be used with a State pension at its back; and he intended in Committee to move an Amendment to prevent it.

deprecated the attack on the police which had been made by the hon. Member for Battersea.

asked the indulgence of the House while he resented the insinuation that he had attacked the police. He had stated that he wished the police to have a better status and better pay.

said the only possible inference that could have been drawn from the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea was that the policeman did not keep his eyes open as he should do with regard to publicans and bookmakers, that is to say, do his duty, because he did not receive £2 per week. He desired to place it on record that that was not the view taken by Members sitting on the Unionist side of the House. So far as the opposite side was concerned, he believed that the statement of the hon. Member was true that the police did not receive the sympathy and consideration on this occasion that they did five years ago, but it was certainly not the case on the Government side of the House. He thought it was only common justice that permanent special service should count for service when the question of pension came to be considered, but he did not believe any good would be done for the public by decreasing the number of the police now in the force. In fact, he thought if such a decrease was made the public service would suffer. He was also of opinion that service after twenty-five years service should count for pension.

said he desired to support the principle of this Bill, because it served the public interest in two respects. It would secure the possibility of the retention in the force of a number of the men of experience who were at present somewhat inclined to retire directly their term of service was sufficient to enable them to claim a pension. He had served on Standing Joint Committees in the North, and had noticed the considerable number of applications for pension. If they passed this Bill they would relieve the public purse of a large, amount of money which was now paid to men who retired from the force at forty-five or forty-six years of age, and who took their pension at the earliest possible moment rather than remain in the force and take the risk of losing that which they had fairly earned. He could not see why it should be impossible for the Standing Joint Committee to consider further years of service rendered by constables when dealing with the question of pension. It ought to be optional for the Standing Joint Committee to consider that when considering the pension that the constable should take.

said the question of the retirement of men in the prime of health and who were perfectly able to carry on their duties as police constables was not so much a matter for the police themselves as for those who had to secure the efficiency of the force. The subject had been before Committees and county councils. Members of the force who had served twenty-five years often thought; it better to take the pensions to which they were entitled and go away, rather than run the risk of forfeiting their pensions. They could not be blamed for that. At the present time they could not remain in the force and make the pension secure. The object of the Bill was to enable them to make the pension secure, and, at the same time, goon in the service if they desired to do so. He believed the Bill would diminish the police charges, and that none of the difficulties, dangers, and extravagancies which hon. Members with an imperfect knowledge of the subject had indicated, were in the least likely to follow in its train.

was understood to suggest that the period of service necessary to qualify for a pension should be lengthened, and that the same rule should apply all over the Kingdom, and the period for service in Scotland, which was now longer than in England, be made the same.

took objection not to this particular proposal in itself, but to the general principle embodied in these Bills. The system of repaying money by annuities was altogether defective. Funds supplied for telephone purposes ought to be repaid out of the revenue of the year. It would doubtless be said that this was for capital expenditure from which the country would receive benefits for many years to come, but he contended that to pledge the credit of the country and incur future liabilities to so large an extent was not sound finance, and he would protest against the practice on every possible occasion. A great objection to the system was that once the Government were authorised to spend the money, there was no further opportunity of discussing the matter. He did not consider that past expenditure on the telephone service had yielded the advantages to the public that might have been expected from it; the Post Office had not afforded all the facilities they might have done, but if the noble Lord would give an assurance that the money would be spent economically and for the public benefit, he would not further oppose the present proposal.

asked whether, if this money were voted, a considerable development of the telephone service in Ireland might be expected. There was a considerable demand for increased telephonic facilities amongst business people in various parts of the country, and it was only fair that that demand should be considered. If the noble Lord undertook to give his attention to Ireland's requirements in the matter, he would raise no objection to the money being voted. Unless they got some undertaking that Ireland would get a fair share of this money he did not think they ought to consent to it. The House had been shovelling about money for wars and other purposes which were perfectly useless, but this was a proposition to vote a certain amount of money for something that would be a benefit to the commercial community and business people generally, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say that Ireland would share to some extent in the development of this system.

thought it was very desirable to have an extension of the telephone system in Ireland, but if they were going to charge London prices it would be very little use indeed. In extending the service from Dublin to Sligo there should be facilities given in all the towns en route so as to place business premises in direct telephonic communication with the city of Dublin.

said that yesterday the noble Lord was asked certain Questions which at that time he was obviously unable to deal with. Those Questions were very important, and any further information he was able to give them now in regard to them would be welcomed by the country. He understood that this was only a preliminary stage of this Bill, and that there would be a further opportunity of considering this matter. There were, however, two points upon which the noble Lord might give them information, first with regard to the finance of the Post Office telephones at the present time. The noble Lord had already given them some interesting figures about the number of telephone messages in the London service but he had not referred to the capital sunk in London. He mentioned the whole capital as being £4,250,000 for the whole country, but he did not say how the revenues were coming in from the rest of the country. They were now being asked for £3,000,000 more and it had been hinted that even a larger sum would be required for the purchase of the National Telephone Company's undertaking. The amount was getting very large indeed. If some more information could be given as to the revenue which the Post Office was deriving generally from the great expenditure which had been incurred, it would be very satisfactory to the House. There was another point mentioned yesterday, and it was that a promise should be given by the Government that this expenditure should be separated from the telegraph and that separate accounts should be presented. This appeared on the Paper as a Telegraph Money Bill, but it was not for the telegraph system at all but for the telephone system. There was a continual loss with regard to the investments of the country in telegraphs, but it was said to be a different story in regard to telephones. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to promise that the Post Office, after consideration, would see its way to separate the two accounts and give them information as to how the development of the telephone system was likely to repay this House for the great expenditure incurred. The next point he wished to raise was in reference to the facilities which would he given to the House to consider any arrangement with the National Telephone Company. This was a point which was spoken about yesterday. He knew it was not an easy matter to arrange satisfactorily because negotiations with the company must be carried on between the Post Office authorities and the company, and an agreement must be put forward. They did not want the question finally settled without the House having an opportunity of considering it fully and adequately. He was in favour of the development of telephones, especially in rural areas.

congratulated the noble Lord upon the immediate development of the telephone system which he hoped was going to take place under his ægis and authority, and he associated himself with the hope that it would be extended to the rural districts. He wished to ask how the telephone system was developing in the outskirts of London. He wished to know what facilities the noble Lord was taking to insist upon the opening of extension offices in the immediate neighbourhood of London so that they would not have to pay £17 or £18 for the telephone, which was a very high price compared with any of the capitals of Europe or even with rural areas.

said that with regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for Stowmarket, he should like to have the particulars of the case he had mentioned, and he would enquire into it. They were endeavouring, as far as possible, to push the extension of the telephone system in London, and he did not understand why any difficulties had arisen in the hon. Member's case. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Clare, he could not give the list of places in Ireland where the extensions had been made, but he might say that no single application from Ireland which he had seen had been refused. His idea was to make a complete network throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and then extend the wires of the exchanges to all the small places. The hon. Member for Islington had asked him three Questions. The first one was in regard to the capital expenditure in London, He might say that the amount expended on exchanges in London was £1,495,602. With regard to the accounts, it was rather quick to be asked to give any decision at the present moment, but he thought that there would be a great advantage in having the two accounts kept separate. There were many difficulties in the way, and it would hardly be possible to give a strictly accurate account, but he thought he might be able to arrange matters so as to enable the House to see fairly accurately what the expenditure was on telephones as compared with telegraphs. With regard to any arrangement which the Post Office might come to with the National Telephone Company, he wished to withdraw a word which he used yesterday, which did not accurately describe the position. He spoke of "negotiations," but the question had not got to negotiations yet. There were pourparlers going on, but they had not yet come to negotiations, although he hoped they would be able to come to some arrangement. If they did arrive at some arrangement the Question he had been asked was what opportunity of considering that agreement would be afforded the House. The exact form which that consideration must take was very difficult to state off-hand. Before the House was called upon to deal with the question and decide upon it, it should be considered by a Select Committee of the House, who should report upon it. If the Committee were of opinion that the agreement was a good one, it would certainly be to his benefit to have the support of a Select Committee in giving hon. Members all the assistance possible in dealing with the subject.

said the House had heard with satisfaction the line taken by the Postmaster General. Ho wished to point out, in view of the statement made last night, how extremely important it was to the public in general to know exactly what the attitude of the Government would be, and what might be the nature of the future negotiations. In view of the fact, now public property, that the Government were going to endeavour to buy the National Telephone Company's undertaking, people would hesitate at present before they went to the expense of putting up wires. He thought the Postmaster-General would consult the wishes of the community at large if he would, as soon as possible, bring the matter to a point. Let him hasten the negotiations. He had indicated that he intended to use the powers he possessed. Nothing would make him more popular as Postmaster-General than the bringing about of a settlement of the telephone question on a permanent basis. A strong man was wanted to stand up to the National Telephone Company, He hoped the noble Lord would answer that description. The announcement by the noble Lord as to a Select Committee was very satisfactory.

I think that will probably be the form.

said that was as far as they could reasonably expect the Postmaster-General to go at the present time. He hoped that in any action the noble Lord took he would feel strengthened and supported by the Report of the Select Committee. Supposing the negotiations to fail, the Select Committee should be instructed to consider whether Parliament should be asked for compulsory powers to acquire the undertaking. There were delays in providing a telephonic service, which were much greater than they ought to be. He thought the supervision of the Post Office system might be materially strengthened, and the service made more effective. Foreign countries were ahead of us in the matter of telephones.

They have very different powers from those we have in regard to wayleaves.

said that might be, but he was sure Parliament would give the Postmaster-General whatever powers he wanted in regard to that matter. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Any Member of the House who would take the responsibility of opposing such a demand would have to reckon with his constituents when the time came. It was notorious that our telephone system was the worst in the world. It was a scandal and disgrace to this country that we should have such a system as we had at present. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not hesitate to ask any money which, within reasonable limits, he might require in order to deal satisfactorily with this question.

said the Post Office had not yet commenced to make a distinction between the telegraph and the telephone accounts. He urged that a distinction should be made in order that the outlays in respect of each of the services might be known. He reminded the Postmaster-General that although they had been at great expense in creating trunk lines the National Telephone Company had the cream of the business. He would like to know what return the country was obtaining for the capital which the Post Office had expended on the telephone service. He understood that the trunk telephones were by no means a profitable investment. When the Government acquired the telegraphs a great deal of money had to be spent which might have been saved if the matter had been managed in a more business-like way. The noble Lord had now to deal with gentlemen of great astuteness in the Telephone Company, and they would no doubt do their best to obtain good terms in disposing of plant which in many cases was antiquated.

said he served for many months on a Committee two or three years ago which inquired into the question of the telephone service. He should like to know whether the recommendations of that Committee were carried out. He was somewhat surprised that it was found to be necessary to have another inquiry after the recommendations made by the Committee presided over by the late Mr. Hanbury.

said that the suggestion was that the terms of the arrangement would be submitted to a Select Committee before they were presented to the House. There was no intention of inquiring into the telephone service.

said he desired to move an Amendment which would raise the principle of the clause; and that was the control which the House of Commons ought to have in respect to the disposal of any surplus money after carrying out the improvement contemplated in The Mall. It was generally recognised that this improvement, when fully carried out, would do credit to the Government and to London itself; but it was also the case that the expense to be incurred would be three or four times more than the original estimate. Clause 1 provided that if the amount of money from the Battersea fund was not fully expended in this improvement the balance should be handed over, with the sanction of the Treasury, to the Commissioner of Works to carry out any other improvement he thought proper, in other parts of London, without the previous approval of Parliament. Of late years there had been too much tendency to take away the authority of the House of Commons over expenditure and put it into the hands of the Treasury. No doubt the Treasury officials discharged their arduous duties to the satisfaction of the country; but it was not a good thing to hand over to them increased powers, as had been done, not only in regard to Bills of this character, but in regard to the manner of expenditure in other Departments. He wished to retain that power in the hands of the House of Commons; and the Amendment he proposed was, in Clause 1, to leave out the word "Treasury" and insert "Parliament."

said he did not anticipate that there would be any surplus after this improvement had been fully carried out. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no other important improvement in London would be undertaken by the Commissioner of Public Works without the approval of Parliament.

said that in view of the statement of the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.

asked what would be the position of the Government if they got through their business on the Order Paper?

The hon. Gentleman must confine his attention to this particular Order.

said he had no objection to the Bill. It was only a matter affecting the expenditure of £15,000 from the Battersea money by the Commissioner of Works. If every Commissioner of Works was as efficient as the hon. Gentleman the money entrusted to him would be well spent. But he appealed to the Government not to get through their programme on the Order Paper too soon.

said that this was one of those complicated Bills which referred to London. When electric lighting was introduced into London the old boundaries of the vestries existed; but after the Metropolitan Boroughs Act was passed these boundaries were all altered and the consequence was that the electric lighting areas got mixed. If this Bill were intended to adjust the boundaries so as to make the electric lighting areas correspond exactly with those of the metropolitan boroughs it would have been an undoubted advantage. But obviously that was impracticable under this Bill. The question dealt with was to balance inconvenience—to escape from one inconvenience and change it for another inconvenience. The Bill would certainly not bring about a state of perfection. In dealing with such matters as electric lighting, gas, and water, London should be dealt with as a whole, so that the plant could be put down as most convenient in natural areas and not in the artificial areas of the metropolitan boroughs. Under this Bill, which laid down entirely fictitious boundaries, the whole electrical supply of London would be placed in a disjointed state. Clause 1 provided that where, by reason of any alteration of boundary under the Local Government Act of 1899, any area, being part of the area of supply of the council of a metropolitan borough, had become situate outside the borough, that area should, as from the date of the passing of the Act, be transferred to, and become part of, the area of supply of the council of the borough in which the transferred area had become situated if that council was authorised to supply electricity within the borough, or, if that council was not so authorised, of any company so authorised, but only if the area of supply of that council or company adjoined the transferred area. Then followed a number of contingencies which showed that there was no perfection in the proposed scheme. Clause 2, which had reference to the adjustment of the area of supply, provided that where a council was authorised to supply electricity the area should become part of the area of supply, but only if the area of the supply adjoined the transferred area. But if the council did not supply, what then? He did not think that the first two clauses dealt adequately with the matter. There were two exceptions in Clause 2—namely, where the area consisted of a whole parish or the greater part of a parish, and where a company was authorised to supply within the borough in which the area had become situated at any point adjoining the area. Then it was proposed that the foregoing provisions should not apply in the case of any part of an area of supply in which mains or other works suitable to, and used for, the supply of electricity had been laid down or executed before the 1st day of January, 1904. Then there was the question of agreement between one company and another; and it was proposed that such agreements should have the force of an Act of Parliament. That was rather unusual. Why not proceed by Provisional Order, which would enable the public to have a say in the matter? A Provisional Order would appear on the Statute-books whereas no arrangement for the publicity of agreements was provided under the Bill. At present, borough councils were empowered to supply electric light, and no doubt it was intended to make that power operative; but it was impossible to know how far the Bill would secure that end. He did not intend to criticise the general effect of the Bill; but he wished to impress on the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of considering the electric supply of London as a whole under one governing body. That would tend to concentrated cheapness and good management. He would not oppose the Bill but would leave the responsibility in the matter with the President of the Board of Trade.

said he wished to remind the House that this Bill was a hybrid Bill, namely, a Bill rought in by the Government dealing with private interests, and it, therefore, would have to go to a Committee upstairs, and it was in Committee that the details of a measure of such a technical character could be practically examined. The hon. Gentleman described very accurately the broad outlines of the Bill, and had therefore relieved him from doing so. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Bill was not a complete solution of the difficulty. No doubt that was the case; but any attempt to meet the difficulty at this moment would not be at all an easy matter. All he claimed was that the Bill went some distance in the direction of reducing the abnormalities which followed from the Act of 1899, as regarded electric lighting areas. The Bill applied to small and unimportant alterations for which it would not be worth while for a local authority or company to introduce a Provisional Order. It was very expedient that those alterations should be made before the time when the local authorities were entitled to purchase. It was obvious that the transfer of areas from one authority to another would be very much more difficult as time went on. Where works had already been laid down they had been obliged to leave matters to be arranged according to agreement between the two companies or local authorities. He did not claim that the Bill would solve all difficulties, but it would assist solution when the problem came to be dealt with as a whole.

said that there were objections to the Bill which he would not press, seeing, that it would be sent to a Select Committee, and that it was only intended to smooth the way for future legislation. Certainly the question of electric lighting in London would have to be dealt with in a large and comprehensive scheme, and possibly it would be wise to constitute an Electricity Board analogous to the London Water Board.

said the hon. Member for Mid Lanark deserved the thanks of the House for ascertaining the reason of the Government for introducing this Bill this afternoon. There had been three or four Bills put down upon the Paper for which the House had no explanation, and in regard to this particular and important matter he had not heard that there was any burning desire, outside, that the House of Commons should put aside all other matters to discuss it. Why was it that, at the most valuable period of the session, time was to be occupied in discussions of this kind, for which no special need had been established. As he understood, the Bill gave power to the Board of Trade to practically ignore any decision which might be arrived at by the Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the companies very often were not under the same local authority. In view of this Bill, he thought when the Government undertook to deal with local areas they ought to take power also to consolidate the local authorities, which was a thing that this Bill did not do. The right hon. Gentleman had been long enough at the Board of Trade to know that the one thing which created so much dissatisfaction among the people was the number of local authorities which had the management of the streets. Every day in the year the streets were being pulled up for something or other, and what was wanted was one central authority for the management of the streets, so that they might not be pulled up more than once a year. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to take power to consult the local authorities. He did not know what the London County Council thought of this Bill, but apparently as there was no opposition from the hon. Member for Battersea they were satisfied.

said he made no pretensions to have a mandate to speak for the London County Council on this or any other matter, but he felt compelled to respond to the invitation just extended to him. The Electric Lighting London Bill was not opposed by the London County Council, because it was a Bill which met public necessities in the degree that they were met by the Bill which the London County Council presented in the previous year, a Bill which, in deference to the Board of Trade, the Council did not persist in; the result was that the Board of Trade with the able assistance of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, who really ought to be on the Treasury Bench leading the Government, did the work of the County Council. The Bill harmonised the electric lighting and borough areas which the new boundaries under the London Government Act disturbed and to that extent it ought to be supported. In London there were thirty local government areas, of which one half were supplied with electric light by companies and one half by local authorities. He hoped this Bill would not be made the medium of transferring from a local authority to a private company any area of supply which it would be more profitable, from the ratepayers point of view, for the local authority to keep. That possibility was worthy of note, in view of the fact that the Borough of Bermondsey was at present much perturbed about a readjustment of boundaries which, if sanctioned by the Board of Trade against the wish of the borough council, would inflict upon the local authority what they considered to be a material inconvenience and loss of profit. If any attempt was made to use this Bill for the purpose of giving private companies a numerical ascendancy in regard to the areas supplied by them, he hoped, in the interests of the public, the President of the Board of Trade would take the side of the local authority rather than that of the companies. Several matters required to be carefully watched, but if the Bill was going upstairs to a Hybrid Committee, before which the local authorities would be able to present their case, he would support the Second Reading.

was understood to ask whether, if an area not coterminous with a borough desired to obtain from the local authority electric light, which the local authority was equally anxious to supply, this Bill would prohibit such an arrangement being arrived at. If that was the principle of the Bill, it would inflict a great injustice on certain localities which had incurred heavy expenditure on electric lighting undertakings, and would check similar enterprise in the poorer parts of London.

regarded the Bill as a small attempt on the part of the Government to bring about something approaching uniformity of action in regard to the lighting of the Metropolis. One had only to wander around the precincts of the Houses of Parliament to see some of the most disgraceful lighting to be found in any great town in the universe. It would be a defect in the Bill if it enabled private companies to increase their control over the general lighting of the Metropolis, because whatever jealousy there might be on the part of some persons in regard to municipal trading, there could be no doubt that, if a local authority set up a generating station for locomotion purposes, every facility ought to be given to the local authority to control the lighting as well as the locomotion within its area, because a much better financial result was obtained from the combination of the two undertakings. He hoped, therefore, that, if possible, the Bill would be so modified in Committee as to give a bias in favour of local authorities acquiring extended powers of lighting in their own areas, and possibly, by combination, of giving a better service in particular districts. He was anxious that private companies should not obtain any advantage over local authorities.

did not think it possible for private companies to get any advantage under the Bill. The measure did not effect any question such as that to which the hon. Member was referring.

said that under these circumstances the Bill could be received only as a very small step in the direction of securing uniformity in the lighting of the Metropolis, but he hoped it would obtain a Second Reading and be sent to a Committee, by which all its details could be carefully inquired into.

in moving the Second Reading, reminded the House that the whole question of the law relating to dogs was considered in the year 1897 by a Departmental Committee over which the hon. Member for Chelsea presided. Of the several recommendations made by the Committee, the principal were that there should be greater stringency in granting exemptions from licence duty, and that additional powers should be given to county councils, enabling them to make by-laws for keeping dogs under proper control. Since 1897 several Bills dealing with the subject had been introduced, one of which, brought in last year by the late Mr. Hanbury, was very similar to the measure to which the House was now asked to give a Second Reading. Owing to the unfortunate death of Mr. Hanbury, and to the stress of public business, that Bill had to be dropped; but the Board of Agriculture had all along felt that some legislation was absolutely necessary. The present Bill proposed to consolidate certain existing enactments and to give effect to several of the recommendations of the Committee of 1897. The principal object of the Bill was to afford protection to owners of live stock from injury by dogs, particularly by sheep worrying. The gravity of the evil was known to many Members of the House, and certainly the information which had come to the Board of Agriculture showed that the feeling with regard to the matter was very widespread. The worst sufferers were those who lived in the great sheep-shearing districts of Scotland and Wales. He thought he ought to allude to the statement of the Chief Constable for the county of Banffshire, in which he stated that during four years prior to 1901 the number of sheep reported to him as worried was 333, and during the first half of the year 1902 no less than ninety-six sheep were worried. This had proved to be a very serious loss to the agriculturists of that county. The county of Banffshire was by no means an exceptional case. He would give the House one or two more examples out of a very large number which had reached the Board of Agriculture. In June last year there were seventy-six Southdown sheep killed at St. Mary Cray, Kent, and twenty injured in one night, and in January last year in Yorkshire there were twenty-one sheep worried. Last year at Banbury, in Oxfordshire, there were sixty-one sheep chased into a stream and drowned, six of them being actually worried. As regarded Scotland, he had already alluded to Banffshire, but he might say that there were many other cases with which he would not trouble the House. With reference to Wales there were last year cases where valuable prize sheep were worried, and in Ireland a gentleman from Tipperary had informed him that he lost something like £150 in ten years through sheep worrying by dogs. Those were only a few cases out of a great number which had been received by the Board of Agriculture, and the direct annual loss to agriculturists was very considerable and most serious; also there was indirect loss from the chasing of in-lamb ewes. Several resolutions has been sent up to the Board, not only from the chambers of agriculture in this country, but also from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and from the majority of the important agricultural societies of the whole kingdom. He might also point out that when Lord Onslow met the representatives of Scotch agriculture in Edinburgh special stress was laid upon this question of sheep worrying in Scotland. Therefore, he thought he had shown that this Bill was really necessary, and it was one which agriculturists all over the country urgently desired. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. The Bill consolidated and amended the law relating to the liability of dog-owners, assimilated the laws of the three countries, and made owners liable without proof of the mischievous propensities of the dog. It, also gave power to the Board of Agriculture to make orders with regard to the wearing of collars by dogs, and that power would probably be delegated to the local authorities. The Bill also amended the present procedure of obtaining exemptions from dog duty, on the ground that the dog was kept solely for the purpose of tending sheep. That system had not worked well, and there was an enormous number of dogs that got exemptions to which they were not entitled. In the county of Montgomery,1,747 licences were issued, and the exemptions numbered 6,220; in the county of Dumfries, 4,471 licences were issued, and the exemptions numbered 12,386; and in the county of Inverness, 2,748 licences were issued, and the exemptions numbered 17,772. [Cries of "Oh, Oh!"] It was proposed under the Bill to make the consent of a Petty Sessional Court a condition precedent to the granting of a certificate. That was the scope of the Bill, and he hoped it would be read a second time.

said it was an extraordinary measure which created a lot of new offences. Under it they would have to go to the magistrate to ask him to define a shepherd dog, and would later have to go before him again to pay a half-sovereign—not once nor twice, but perhaps half a dozen times—for their stray dogs. Under the present law, if a dog was proved to have chased and injured cattle the owner was liable, but this Bill would make it an offence that if a dog only chased a flock of geese or a herd of sheep without doing any damage at all, the police—if they wanted a case—could haul the owner before a magistrate. The Bill provided that, with a view to the prevention of worrying of sheep, no dog was to be allowed to stray between the hours of sunset and sunrise. In his opinion the real reason for the Bill was not the question of sheep worrying, because under the Common Law if it were proved that a dog had injured any neighbour's sheep the owner was liable to a penalty. The real reason—especially in England—was that the dogs were wanted to be kept in between sunset and sunrise for the protection of game and the assistance of the gamekeeper. He was glad that sporting dogs were not exempt from the Bill, but he regretted that it gave no power to the local authority, although power might be given later by the Board. In his view it would have been better to have left the matter in the hands of the district or county councils. He begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

said that under this Bill any poor, miserable animal, the joy of a widow's home, was affected. [Laughter]. Hon. Members laughed at that remark, but he thought that under this Bill cruelty to poor women's pet dogs might arise. He was not be lover of dogs himself, but that provision to prevent dogs from straying during all, or any, of the hours between sunset and sunrise, was absurd. They were legislating for all the dogs in the country, because the Bill did not define what a shepherd's dog was. He was sure the ordinary policeman could not tell a shepherd's dog from any other dog. He had no objection to a dog wearing a collar, but he objected to the wearing of a collar being compulsory, as was proposed by Sub-section (a) of Clause 2. It was proposed also, that the name and address of the owner should be on the collar. It came to this, that dogs were really not ordinary animals at all. They were ' a luxury, but they were not so much a luxury in Ireland as in England. A dog licence in England was 7s. 6d. and in Ireland 2s. 6d. [An HON. MEMBER: Another injustice to Ireland.] That was absolutely the only benefit Ireland got from the Imperial connection. He thought the dog tax of 2s. 6d. was quite enough to pay without having to buy collars as well. He did not object to the name and address of the owner being on the collar, but why not go a step further and have the owner's photograph on the collar? Sub-section (b) of Clause 2 empowered the Board of Agriculture to make orders—

"With a view to the prevention of worrying of sheep, for preventing dogs or any class of dogs from straying during all, or any of, the hours between sunset and sunrise."

That was a very ridiculous proposal. It seemed to him the resurrection of the curfew bell for dogs. Great inconvenience would be caused by having dogs chained up in the house all night. He entirely approved of Clause 1 which provided that—

"The owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for injury done to any cattle by that dog."

If a man could afford the luxury of keeping a dog, he should have the luxury of paying damages for injury caused by the dog. He hoped the Government would not press the Bill. He would recommend them to introduce a simpler measure of one clause placing on the owner of a dog responsibility for any damage the animal did. This complicated Bill dealt with many matters which, in his opinion, were entirely foreign to its real object and character, and that being so, he must cordially support the Motion for its rejection. He objected to Clause 4, which proposed that, in order to obtain exemption from the Excise licence in respect of sheep dogs, the owner should require the previous consent of a Petty Sessional Court. The men who kept sheep dogs lived far away from the Petty Sessional Courts, and rather than waste a day going there it would be much more convenient to pay the tax and not seek exemption at all. The Bill altogether was unwise and unsatisfactory.

thought that this question should be considered seriously. Those who were acquainted with the damage done by stray dogs in country districts were perfectly aware that the Board of Agriculture had done no more than their duty in introducing this Bill to check that mischief. There were certain details of the Bill which would require reconsideration in Committee, but on the whole it would be a useful measure. He did not think that the provision in Clause 2 in regard to confining dogs between sunset and sunrise, would be sufficient. No doubt in some parts of the country the damage done by dogs to sheep was after dark, bat in Scotland summer nights were very short. Two tenants of his own lost 100 lambs by worrying dogs, although the shepherds had been watching all night. It was found that a dog came from several miles off in early daylight. He thought it would be better to give the local authorities power to fix the hours during which dogs should not be allowed to be at large.

said that this was not a very brave Government, but he thought it was to be congratulated in having taken courage in both hands and brought in this Bill. Some hon. Members had expressed surprise that it had taken precedence of the Licensing Bill and the Scotch Education Bill, which the Prime Minister had said were of the first importance; but the very great necessity for the Bill had been explained by the hon. Gentleman who introduced it. Very interesting statistics had been made available to him for the North-east of Scotland in regard to sheep worrying by dogs. In one district, for the four years ending 1901, twenty-nine sheep had been killed by dogs, and fifty-four injured—quite independent of the injury done by the chasing of the sheep. That was a very serious matter for the crofter and small farmer, and it quite over-rode any feeling which hon. Members and others outside the House might have as to the inconvenience to which dogs were to be subjected. It was found in the district in the North-east of Scotland to which he had referred, that out of fifty-eight cases of sheep worrying in three years, twenty had occurred during the day and thirty-eight during the night. That showed that the period of confinement of the doss under Section 2 should be made longer, although if they were confined during the night the number of cases of injury would be diminished by two-thirds. The second remedy proposed was that the dogs should wear collars bearing the names of their owners. Now, in the district to which he had referred, out of 101 cases dealt with, in only seventy-five could the owner be identified. There was one clause which he ventured to hope the Government would reconsider: he meant that dealing with exemption from duty. The hon. Gentleman could not have had in his mind when that clause was drafted the enormous distances which shepherds and small farmers in Inverness-shire, Argyle, Ross and Cromarty, and the Orkneys would have to travel to get to the Petty Sessions Court. It would take a whole week's work to get exemption, and the provision as it stood was quite out of the question. There was another particular in which the Government might improve the Bill. Farmers should be bound to bury sheep that had died, at such a depth as to prevent dogs getting at the carcase.

said he thought the Bill was in many ways necessary, but there were a few small details which would have to be amended. For instance, Sub-section 4 of Clause I., referring to the chasing of dogs, would have to come out; it was quite an impossible provision. Another section stated that where the police had seized a dog it might be destroyed after five days. That was rather too short a time, and he suggested that it should be ten days. In regard to the provision that dogs must be confined between sunset and sunrise, he thought it would be better if the hours of confinement were fixed by the Board of Agriculture, because, if left to the local authorities, in some cases tyrannical rules might be laid down.

said that in his constituency there were a large number of small freeholders, almost all of whom had both sheep and sheep dogs, and he took the view that the Bill would be very oppressive to such small owners, and greatly increase their expenses. The special points which weighed in his mind against the Bill were three in number. They were not mere details, but went to the substance of the Bill. If the Bill were made optional he would withdraw his opposition to it, but if it were passed as it stood, it would be virtually forced on the country. Clause 2, which provided that every dog should wear a collar with badge, meant considerable cost and inconvenience to the small owner. Clause 3, which gave power to the police to seize and destroy dogs, and Clause 4, which dealt with exemptions, he was sure would be most oppressive to the poor owners or tenants. This application to magistrates was an additional step. The present exemption was an exemption based on legal grounds. The Excise officers would not be doing their duty if they did not refuse all exemptions which they thought could be legally refused. Were the magistrates, who were now to be put in to act on the same grounds? If so, were the Excise officers to be directed to throw the responsibility on the magistrates and to accept their finding of fact as to whether the exemption must be given or not? The additional step would tend to become a mere form, but it would cause an additional difficulty to the poor owners.

pointed out that a sheep dog would not work at all with a muzzle on. It was well known that a dog in such a case would not move from his master's heel. With regard to the sub-section of Clause 2, it is a well-known fact that the dogs were always turned out of the farmhouse at night, that they were never by any chance allowed indoors, and some care should be taken on the part of the owners of such dogs to see that they did not stray, because it would be admitted by many that very often the worst devastation and damage was caused by those dogs which lay still all day and went out and worried sheep and cattle at night. He hoped this Bill would, when it was amended, pass through the House and come into force, not on the 1st January next, when the time it could be of any use was nearly over, but on the 1st August next.

said he was a great admirer of dogs and kept more than he was justified in doing. Yes, but he paid the licence for all of them. At the same time he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. All who had had any experience of the devastation that night dogs could make: must desire some further restriction of their liberty. He would shoot the greatest pet he had if he thought he was a danger to his neighbours. Coming to the provisions of the Bill he asserted that anybody who knew anything of the subject was well aware that a dog could chase a flock of sheep without biting them and commit untold injury, especially at lambing time.

said the hon. Gentleman could not have read the Bill, because if a dog caused injury by chasing it came under the Act.

replied that he did not think the hon. Gentleman had had much experience of that sort of dog in his constituency. He (the speaker) had seen evidence of enormous injury to sheep and cattle by chasing. He did not see why fowls should not come within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, all property should be protected against vicious dogs, and every person keeping a dog should be made responsible for its control. But, while giving the fullest protection to the farmer and flock-owner, they should insist at the same time that no one should be liable for injury caused to flocks if they were unattended on the public highway or escaped through the negligence of the owners or of those in charge of them.

thought it was unnecessary to say very much upon this Bill, because the House was apparently prepared to accept the principle of it, and the criticisms that had been brought against it were directed to matters of detail which could be better dealt with in Committee. But as Chairman of the Departmental Committee on whose recommendations this Bill was largely based, he ought to say this. That Committee was a very large Committee, and composed of gentlemen from all parts of the United Kingdom. They had come to the unanimous conclusion that the damage done to stock and sheep in the hill districts of Govern-Great Britain was really serious in extent and magnitude; they were also impressed with the fact that the present law was far from adequate for the prevention of this damage, and that the existing system of obtaining exemptions from licences from the Inland Revenue was such as to lead to the evasion of the law. This system must be fortified in some such way as that proposed by the Bill. He thanked the Government and the House for the way they had attempted to deal with these very real evils and cordially supported the Second Reading of the Bill.

said he had been a member of the Departmental Committee whose recommendations this Bill gave effect to. They had taken a considerable amount of evidence which was overwhelming as to the necessity for such a Bill as this. The Committee, no doubt, would not care to be responsible for the whole of the details, but, so far as the general principle of the Bill was concerned, they would gladly be held responsible for it. People in agricultural parts of the country held, not that the Bill went too far but that it did not go half far enough, and he was certain that it would be welcomed by the small farmers. The question they asked was why they should not have the right to shoot dogs that worried their sheep. The whole tendency of the evidence taken before the Committee was that the mischief was mainly done by dogs who were either ownerless or whose ownership was of a more or less nebulous character, and the general tendency of the Bill was to try to remedy that state of things. The existing right of exemption had been very largely abused. The original idea was that the farmer should not be taxed for a dog that was necessary to his trade, but a great many of those who were exempted were not farmers at all but persons who owned a cow, a sheep, or a goat. It would be a great hardship on Scotch farmers to have to go to the Sheriff, but no doubt the machinery in that respect could easily be amended. It had been said that the Bill ought to apply to localities and not to the country generally, but the whole intention of the Bill was that it should apply to localities though it was necessary that discretion should be left with the Board of Agriculture in order to secure uniformity in the case of two farming localities adjoining each other.

expressed his appreciation of the action of the Board of Agriculture in bringing in the Bill. It afforded necessary and just protection to farmers, and would not seriously inconvenience any other section of the community. They often heard of cattle being killed and destroyed by dogs at night, but there was another very serious injury caused to sheep and cows through worrying by dogs just before the lambing and calving seasons. The precautions of the measure were very necessary indeed. One indirect advantage was that it would prevent night poaching.

thought his hon. friend might very well be satisfied with the reception the Bill had met with. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean called attention to the power to seize stray dogs. He would remind him that that power already existed in the Metropolis, and, if it was necessary there, it was probably more necessary in the country. The other objection of the right hon. Gentleman was as to the difficulty of obtaining exemption. He certainly thought no difficulty should be thrown in the way of a farmer from getting exemption for a sheep dog, but at the same time it was quite clear that the exemption had been very largely abused, and it was necessary to consider how it could be confined to bonâ fide claimants. That, however, was a point which could very well be dealt with in Grand Committee. He submitted that the other objections taken were really objections of detail, and, as the great majority of the House appeared to be satisfied that some Bill ought to be passed on the lines proposed by the Government, he thought they might now take a division on the Second Reading.

said that if this Bill was the result of the noble Lord's experiment in taking the advice and calling to his councils, farmers who should not be gentlemen, as he openly avowed in Scotland would be the policy of his Department, he could not congratulate him on the result, for a more stupid, impracticable Bill could hardly have been printed. He could not think that the advice of a practical farmer or gentleman in Scotland had been taken about the Bill. The Bill was certainly wanted, and all that was required now was to hand the management of it over to the county councils, and compel every dog to wear a collar with an invertifying number which the local authorities could well provide without throwing any cost on the owners; such a thing would entail little or no cost whatever. Clause 4 of the Bill could never have been considered by the Chairman of the Committee or the Solicitor-General. In some parts of the, Highlands and Islands with I which he was acquainted having to go and see the Sheriff in order to obtain an exemption would necesistate the absence of the crofter or farmer for six weeks and therefore so far as Scotland was concerned this Bill was not worth the paper on which it was written.

said in the few minutes it was his intention to take up the time of the House, he desired to speak more as regards the principle which underlay this Motion, rather than to deal with the rate of wage paid, or what should be paid. No doubt some of his hon. friends would go more into detail during the debate. We were sometimes told to "think Imperially," and to dream of Empire. Those who lived in constant and close contact with the worker, and had exceptional opportunities of knowing his feelings on public matters generally, found that, in his quiet and thoughtful moments, he cared very little about the number of square miles we might add to our territory, or how many square inches on the map we were able to paint red. He was more concerned, and rightly so, as to how he could make his home, which was his empire, brighter and happier, and as to how he could lessen the care and anxiety caused by the dependence from week to week, and from day to day, upon employment, in order to earn sufficient to meet the daily wants of his wife and family. His measure of comfort was to a large extent dependent upon the amount he was able to obtain for his labour. He was informed that the wages paid in the Government factories and dockyards was much less than the trade union rate paid for similar employment by outside firms. Some years ago, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar this. House passed what was known as the fair wages clause, to apply to Government contractors. As to whether that had been honestly carried out or not, it is not his province to-night to inquire. This he would say, that this House was in duty bound to pay to its own workmen as good a standard rate of wages as that which they rightly demanded should be paid by their contractors. In using the words standard rate of wages in his Resolution, he desired the House to understand that he meant the trade union rate. This was a Lancashire phrase, and both employer and employed in that county clearly understood what it meant. They had to look at this question from all sides. The taxpayer should not be called upon to pay more to his workmen than he is himself able to obtain by trade union effort. The workman in the employment of the taxpayer should be content with the trade union rate. On this matter he spoke with some little experience. As a member of a municipal corporation for a number of years, and for a time chairman of the tramways committee of that corporation, it was part of his duty to negotiate for settlement the wages and conditions of labour in that department. The consideration of the ratepayer as well as the workmen was always before his mind, and he believed in this and in no other way could a fair and equitable settlement of these matters be made. There might be certain occupations in the Government factories and dockyards to which it might be difficult to find a similar class outside, or in which any organisation amongst the workpeople could be found. In these cases, their duty was to see that the wage was fixed at such a standard as would permit the workman and his family to live in a condition of comfort and respectability, equal with that of workmen in Government employment who were able to obtain the trade union rate. There was a feeling amongst some hon. Members that these questions of wages and conditions of employment amongst Government workmen should not be too often brought before this House, and there was a feeling that certain hon. Members who represented dockyard and similar constituencies were too often pressed in matters relating to these particular constituencies, and that at elections dockyard questions occupied an undue share of the time of candidates. He was prepared to admit there was some truth in all this, but he did not see how, under the system at present adopted, it could be avoided. The remedy he would suggest was that all Government workers in every Department should be granted full trade union rights and conditions. It was said that the workmen were allowed to combine, but the logical effect of this combination was denied them. They were not permitted to select those whom they deemed best able to lay their grievance before the head of each Department, who by the way was the representative of those right hon. Gentlemen who were for the time being the responsible representatives of this House and the country. He was aware that various concessions had from time to time been granted, but the one cardinal principle of trades unionists, namely, that the workmen in combination shall have a right to appoint whom they think proper to conduct any negotiation with their employer, was denied them. At present he understood no one who was not a workman in the employ of the Government was allowed to represent the workmen. He spoke from twenty years experience as a worker in the mill, and as a trade union official, and in this he should have the full corroboration of his colleagues—that upon the acceptance of this principle largely depended whether the workman's organisation was of material value to him or not. The workman's executive might be trusted to appoint only such men as had experience and tact in dealing with these matters, and he said without hesitation that if this House desired that these matters should not occupy so much of its time, the only remedy was to give the workman the same right of combination and representation as that obtained by his fellow workman in outside occupations. This House should not, in his opinion, be the place to settle any of these technical trade matters, but should be more of a Court of Appeal, where serious differences and only serious differences should be brought for its consideration. In this matter, Sir, he only claimed what was the accepted principle of all the great trades and occupations of this country. On the whole it had worked well. The placing of responsibility on the men's representatives tended to widen their view of the situation and caused them to act wisely and judiciously. In conclusion, he asked the Government to give this Motion their favourable consideration. There was nothing extravagant in its proposal. It was the minimum demand of every trades unionist in this country, and, if adopted, would only put the workman in the employment of the State in the position enjoyed by the men employed by a very large proportion of the municipalities, and of hundreds of thousands of their fellow workmen in the employment of private firms. By adopting this Resolution the Government would put themselves in line with those great municipal corporations who were setting a splendid example in raising the standard of living of thousands of their fellow countrymen. He begged to move.

in seconding the Motion, said that all they demanded was a just interpretation of the Fair Wages Resolution, coupled with a due consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on Sweating, in which an increased sense of responsibility on the part of employers was advocated. As to the alleged difficulty of defining the "current wage," he had always contended that the point would be got over by taking the trade union rates for skilled labour, and the wages paid by municipalities and public authorities in the particular districts for unskilled labour. To show the present condition of affairs he would give two or three illustrations. In the factories at Woolwich, 2,600 men were employed as engineers' labourers at a wage of 21s. per week, whereas men doing the same class of work for Messrs. Armstrong, at Newcastle, or for Messrs. Mather and Platt, at Manchester, received 22s. and 23s. respectively, notwithstanding the difference in house-rent in London and the provinces. In the Royal Naval Victualling Yard at Deptford, although an increase of 1s. had recently been given, only 21s. per week was paid to men, 80 per cent, of whom did equally exhausting physical labour, who worked side by side with contractors' men in receipt of higher wages, and with the knowledge that men working in the docks in the vicinity obtained from 24s. to 30s. for precisely similar work. In the Royal Clothing Factory at Pimlico, men employed as warehousemen, and rated as third-class, received only 21s., whereas a similar class of work in the city of London was paid for at a much higher rate. A further grievance at Pimlico was the fact that, owing to a vicious system of classification, men at 21s. a week not only did the same work as, but actually had to superintend, others in receipt of higher wages. With regard to women, of whom 1,500 were employed at Pimlico, the smartest bands were put on certain garments and paid by the piece; being naturally anxious to earn as much as possible they did the work very quickly, and the time thus taken was set up as the standard for all the workers in the factory, with the result that the less fortunate women were scarcely able to earn 10s. a week. The gist of the question lay in the matter of housing. Twenty-one shillings was by no means a fair wage within the county of London. Men working in the Government Dockyard at Pembroke Docks could obtain far better lodgings for 3s. than men engaged at Woolwich or Deptford could get for 8s. Where rents were high Government wages should correspond, and the Home Department had recently recognised that principle by their action in regard to the police. The only advantage Government workers possessed over other workmen was in the greater constancy of their employment, but he contended that that advantage should be so used as to benefit the ratepayers and taxpayers by securing the best possible class of workmen. The other advantages frequently urged could be obtained by the men themselves from any friendly society by the payment of about 6d. per week. The Government were distinctly not doing their duty to the taxpayer. Cheap labour was bad labour. Not only in London, but throughout the world, the best employers recognised that it paid to give if anything a little more than the current rate of wages in order to get the élite of the labour market. The workman's health was his capital, and, just as the capitalist sought to invest his money safely and at as high a rate as was consistent with safety, so, too, the workman had a right to invest his capital governed by similar considerations. Men on low wages were not likely to succeed commercially or in any other sphere. Many of the great social difficulties which existed had been created by the fact that men who were used as machines, and worn out, left behind them a worn-out progeny. It was not only the duty of the Government to be in the first flight of employers, but it was the interest of the taxpayers also; for what made the population stronger and healthier could not ultimately make it poorer. Men who were properly paid would be able to leave behind them children who, having been well housed, clothed, and fed, would be able to hold their own against the nations of the world. He bagged to second the Motion.

in supporting the Motion, reminded the House that in 1893 it unanimously passed a Resolution declaring that—

"No person in Her Majesty's naval establishments should be engaged at wages insufficient for proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accidents, provision for old age, &c., should lie such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country."

That Resolution was accepted by the present Leader of the Opposition, who admitted its application to all branches of Government employment. That Resolution, like the present Motion, was general in its terms, because it was impossible for the House to do more than express the principle upon which the Government ought to act, leaving the bonâ fide carrying out of the principle in its details to the Government themselves. The difficulty in the application of such a Resolution was in respect of what was called unskilled labour, which often did not enjoy the protection of a trade union, and which must rely on the sense of justice of its employer. That reliance should be absolute where the Government was the employer, and no man should be employed under any circumstances by the Government at a wage insufficient for maintenance. But the proper wage must vary greatly from place to place owing to the factor of house rent, and therefore in each place the Government ought to pay their men what a good employer would pay. He could not believe that the Government would object to this Resolution, or that they would fail loyally to observe it if placed on the Journals of the House. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had given instances which seemed to be at variance with the Resolution of 1893, but he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would be able to assure the House that the facts had not been quite accurately stated, or, if they had, that the matter would be at once looked into. In conforming to this principle, the Government would be doing, not only what was just, but what was in the interest of the nation, because they would obtain better value for their money.

said that, as the Motion was simply carrying to completion the Resolution passed by the House in 1891, he hoped it would be accepted by tire Government, and that the House, irrespective of Party, would unanimously agree in passing the Motion. He congratulated his lion, friends on the moderation of tone which had marked their speeches. The House was not asked to accept any proposition as to hours or wages. Parliament was not competent to lay down a "living wage" applicable to all classes and conditions throughout the country; but they could declare that the Government ought to be a model employer of labour. By setting a good example, the action of the Government would beneficially affect wages generally; but, on the other hand, if the Government stood on the level of the bad employer, wages would be prejudicially affected. The proposition put forward by this Motion was really unanswerable. The House had passed a Resolution under which contractors who did work for the Government were bound to pay the recognised rates of wages. Surely it would be the height of hypocrisy, in the face of that Resolution, for the Government of the day to refuse to observe the same rule. Over and over again pledges had been given by responsible Ministers that the Government should be a model employer. But while they all desired the Government to pay a proper rate of wages, they also remembered that they were present as the trustees of the taxpayers, and from that point of view he contended that it was not a right system that wages should be raised by the Government in the Departments under their control as the result of Parliamentary debates. For this reason he supported the Resolution of his hon. friend, and also because it placed the rate of Government wages on a sound and unassailable basis. His only regret was that the Resolution did not extend to skilled labour as well. He hoped that this question of wages would be placed on such a sound basis as to render such debates unnecessary in the future. They had gone up very considerably in regard to some of these matters. He knew there were a certain number of unskilled workers in Government employ who were only receiving 21s. a week. They would probably be asked what was the current rate of wages. In the London district, ever since the year 1899, the minimum rate for unskilled labour was 6d. per hour, and if it was true that the Government were paying below 6d. per hour they were not carrying out the Resolution of the House or putting themselves in the category of good employers. Probably they would be asked how they were going to decide what the current wage was. He noticed that his hon. friend in his Resolution used the term "standard rate" and not "current rate." The standard rate of wages meant the rate agreed upon by employers and employed and paid practically by all employers. When the Fair Wages Resolution which he introduced in 1891 was accepted by the House, he defined fair wages as the wages paid in any particular trade which were fixed by negotiations between employers and employed. That was his definition of current or standard rate of wages, and he hoped it would be on that basis that the Government accepted it. He wished to refer to the Report of the Committee which inquired into the Fair Wages Resolution in 1897. That Committee was presided over by the present Lord Ridley and it contained a majority of hon. Members opposite. In the Report of the majority, which included the hon. Member for Peckham, there appeared a paragraph in which it was stated that the Government ought to throw its weight on the side of better rather than worse conditions of employment, and the Committee cordially endorsed the view that any agreement tending to regulate the rate of wages or the conditions of employment which might be come to between masters and men should be recognised and encouraged. The majority of that Commission, therefore, desired to endorse the view put forward by his hon. friend that the Government should take as their basis the rates of wages recognised between employers and employed. Very likely they would be told that there were many cases in which there was not a recognised rate of wages. No doubt it would be difficult for the Government, in some cases, to say what was a fair rate of wages to pay to the men they employed. It might be said that some authority would be needed to settle what was the standard rate of wages in districts where no recognised rate prevailed. Such an arbitrator existed in the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. He had had a vast amount of experience in this matter, and he found as a rule that the Departments were very anxious not to get at loggerheads with the contractors, and it was distasteful to the officers of the Department to have to inquire into the wages paid by their contractors, and consequently it was very difficult to get a proper inquiry in regard to such matters. What happened at the present moment when a dispute arose in regard to a contractor was that it was spread over such a long time that the contract was generally over before the dispute was settled. With regard to the so-called privileges enjoyed by men in Government departments, he thought they had been very much exaggerated. Those privileges had been estimated as being worth between 6d. and 1s. 6d. per week. He thought this question ought to be inquired into by some authority which was not personally interested in the matter: and it seemed to him to be a question for the Labour Department to decide. The Resolution before the House was one which he did not think the House could possibly disagree with. They had already pledged themeselves that those employed by the State should receive a fair rate of wages, that the State should be a model employer, and that the men employed should receive the current rate of wages. His hon. friend, by his Motion, was only doing what was very essential, and that was putting into a definite and concrete form a Resolution which had already been passed by the House. They had it in black and white already, that the Government should pay the recognised rate of wages, but, if this Resolution were carried, it would be an absolute instruction to all the different departments of the Government to do what the House desired, it would relieve the House of Commons of a difficult discussion on rates of wages, and place the Government in the category of really being good and model employers.

said there was nothing to complain of in the tone of the debate, and he was glad to be able to contribute to the harmony by saying at once that the Government were prepared to accept the Resolution. He thought it would be extremely difficult for any Government, after the Resolutions of 1891 and 1893 had been accepted by the House, to demur to the Resolution which was now before them. He maintained, however, that the Resolution they were now considering did nothing more than formally declare what was now the policy of the different departments of the Government. The departments had honestly and generously striven to carry out the two Fair Wages Resolutions of 1891 and 1893, which had teen accepted by the present Government. If any proof was wanted that the Government were carrying out the policy embodied in those Resolutions they had it in what had been said during the present debate. They had had a very interesting debate, and a great variety of points had been raised, but, with a very trifling exception, scarcely any reference had been made to the terms of the Resolution before them. Contractors and other matters had been dealt with, but with the exception of the few observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington nothing substantial had been raised against the action of the Government. He did not wish to be led away from his subject too far, but, judging from the debate, he thought those who were responsible for the administration of the different departments could claim that no substantial charge had been made in the course of the debate that there had been any departure from those Resolutions. By their past action the Government had proved that they were model employers of labour, and they were determined to go on setting a good example to private employers in that respect. But there were two sides to the question. The character of the Government as employers of labour was not solely to be judged by the rates of wages which they paid their workmen. They had also to prove that they conducted their departments in a business-like manner. It was just as important that they should be able to set a good example to private firms in the economical and satisfactory conduct of their business as in the payment of fair wages. He thought that a tendency had been shown on the other side somewhat to depreciate the advantages which belonged to Government employment. Upon this point he would like to mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1893, when he was speaking as the Secretary of State for War, stated that the Government employees had many natural advantages, such as continuity of work irrespective of seasons or weather, holidays, sick pay, and other advantages. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of that speech dwelt upon those advantages and testified to their value. The hon. Member opposite had valued those advantages at 1s. 6d. per week, but he thought that was rather under-estimating them.

explained that what he said was that he had heard those advantages estimated at 6d., and in some cases at 1s. 6d. per week.

said that to reckon their value at from 6d. to 1s. 6d. was, he thought, a somewhat low estimate. The Government had no difficulty in getting plenty of the best labour, which showed that they were able to hold their own in competition with those who had similar employment to offer. He did not think any serious accusation had been made against the Government. They were fully prepared to take their position as model employers. At the same time, it was due to an important body of contractors not to assume a position which would make it still harder for them to do the work required of them. Obligations had already been placed upon them by Resolutions of the House. And those obligations had been honestly and genuinely carried out. But if they were going to force the pace too much they might injure employment throughout the country. He undertook on behalf of the Government that they would continue to deserve the reputation of being good employers of labour. He might mention that only about a year ago cases were brought to the notice of the present Secretary of State for India which the right hon. Gentleman investigated for himself, and he afterwards caused adjustments to be made which he thought had the approval of all Parties in the House. These were questions which required the closest investigation, and he assured hon. Members that any cases which were brought to the notice of the Government would be dealt with carefully and honestly upon their merits. At the same time it should be realised that they had to take also into their consideration their duty to the taxpayers of the country.

said the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had brought forward one or two minor matters. He had actually brought forward a number of cases where the Government were employing men at Woolwich, Deptford, and Pimlico at wages as low as 21s. per week, whilst the current rate of wages for unskilled labour, even for crossing sweepers, was 24s. per week. Those were not minor matters but the gist of the whole question.

expressed his gratification at the decision of the Government to accept the Resolution, but did not agree that they were entitled to the description of model employers. The current rate of wages in London for unskilled labour was about 30s. As the Government demanded the best service they should pay the best wages, and if they were to be regarded as model employers they should keep up the reputation claimed for them by the treatment given to the workers. He and his friends would not be satisfied with the passing of Resolutions and thon getting no further. When he heard of the privileges and advantages of Government employment he only wished that Members on both Front Benches could realise what Government employment meant to some people. When going round a Government establishment some years ago he was taken to the tailoring department, where there were some women employed. He was told that they were the widows of men who had served the Government faithfully and well, and that they got 11s. a week. "Why, that is starvation," he said. "Oh," the chief of the department replied, "but it's constant." He hoped it would not be thought for a single moment that he was complaining of the present Government any more than of previous Governments. He joined with those who said it was very nearly time that this question was settled once for all, and that they should not everlastingly be putting the wages of men and women up to a sort of Dutch auction, and saying to them "Vote for these men and you will get so much more." It was positively immoral. What they asked was that the Government should accept the trades union rate of wages as the standard rate. Two Resolutions had already been passed agreeing to that, but still there were men and women in the Government employment working for less than ordinary employers could get them for. When he asked for an increase of his own wages from 40s. to 44s., he was met with the reply that with the increase sick allowance could not be paid. He agreed to the condition, and with 1s. a week insured himself for 14s. a week sick allowance with medical attendance. His wife and family had therefore the benefit of 3s. a week extra. He could not see where the advantages of Government employment came in. In His Majesty's dockyards shipwrights were paid a rate of wages which, if paid in private dockyards in connection with the execution of Government contracts, would cause the Admiralty to call attention to the fact that the conditions of the contracts were not being complied with. The rates of wages were: Thames, £2 2s.; Mersey, £2 2s.; Tyne, £1 19s. 6d.; Clyde, £1 18s.3d.; and Belfast, £1 18s. 3d. In His Majesty's dockyards the rate was £1 11s. It appeared to him that the privilege of being in Government employment was the privilege of being allowed to work for a low rate of wages. If they wanted quality as well as quantity they must pay for it. He did not complain of the quality of the men the Government got. He thought they got too good men and women for the money they paid. There were ledger keepers starting at 23s. and rising by an annual increase of 1s. a week to 30s.; and storemen rising from a minimum of 21s. to a maximum of 24s. a week. It was simply impossible for a man with a family to live in anything like decency within the metropolitan area with a wage of less than 30s. a week, in view of the amounts which were required for house rents. Members of boards of guardians were struck by the fact that 90 per cent. of the applicants for medical orders were women whose husbands were earning from 21s. to 24s. a week. When the guardians said, "You should be in a position to get medical attendance for yourself and children," the applicants would say, "Could you do it?" What was the use of always talking about the market value of labour and stating that plenty of men could be got? That argument might be carried right up to the First Lord of the Treasury. Did the House of Commons realise its responsibility to those who too frequently were not on the register at all? It was a remarkable fact that the treatment men got in a good many places was affected by the fact whether they were or were not voters. He was against influence being brought to bear through the ballot box. Of the male workers in the Government employment at Pimlico, 80 per cent. were only getting a guinea a week. Rents in the district were 10s. a week for three rooms; 8s. for two rooms; and 6s. for one room. Could a man be a decent citizen under those conditions? The Government should take good care that bad employers should not be able to point to them as an example in regard to the rate of wages paid. He hoped the House would realise its enormous responsibility in regard to the lives of men and women whom the Government employed at low wages. If a man could not earn as much as would keep his home in decency and comfort, his wife must go out and help to supplement the income. He urged them not to pass the Resolution unless they meant to act up to it.

said that anybody listening to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury might have thought that he was returning thanks on behalf of the Government for a Resolution acknowledging their munificent liberality in the treatment of their employees. He was glad to see the Prime Minister present, because he wished to remind him that he made this a plank in his election programme at Manchester in 1895; and he presumed he had come with the intention of telling them what he considered to be a fair ' wage for unskilled labour in the Government's employ. He hoped he did not agree that the Government was already setting a good example to private employers. The hon. Member recalled the fact that the Resolution of the Member for Cambridge University some years ago was received in precisely the same way as this Resolution, and the present Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the Government then in office, said they had ceased to believe in what was known as competition or starvation wages, being convinced that starvation wages meant starvation work. What was the outcome of it all? Did they prove to be model employers? No, they immediately established, in London, wages of £1 and 19s. a week. By dint of perseverance the representatives of this class of labour had succeeded in getting their wages increased by 2s. and 1s. respectively; but still the Government must know they did not now give a fair subsistence. It was said dockyard representatives were always clamouring for more money for their constituents, but this was perfectly untrue. He challenged anyone to say that he had put forward any demand of an extravagant character or that was not justified. He reminded the House that the rate of pay at Devonport was lower than in London, and he declared that the Government in no single trade paid anything like trade union rates of wages. He wanted the Prime Minister to tell them what he meant when he said he would accept the Resolution; let him tell them what the Government was going to do to render it a reality instead of it being, as it had been in the past, a mere farce. Would he give to the workmen the same privilege of dealing with their employers as workmen employed in private employ? Would he allow them to form a committee of trades and to bargain for fair terms. If he would do this they would get rid of that detestable and disgraceful system of the presentation of their demands in the form of petitions. There ought to be some machinery set up whereby these men could come face to face with their employers, so that they could put their case and make their demands. Then if the Government thought them unfair and excessive they could be referred to some independent authority, such as the Board of Trade. It was a most unpleasant task for those who represented this particular class of labour to have to speak in the House on the matter, but it was their duty. He feared that, unless they got an assurance as to how this Resolution was to be carried out, it would end in this mere expression of acceptance they had heard, and that they would be compelled to revive the question from time to time. He therefore hoped the Prime Minister would favour them with his views before the debate closed.

said that the proposition of those who supported the Resolution came to this—that if rents in a certain locality were high the wages of the labourers should also be high in order to pay the proprietor of the houses an undue rent. It was most unjust and unfair that the taxpayers should be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to hand over to the worker a high wage, and that he in turn should hand this increased wage to the proprietor of property to pay an extortionate rent. The Government should consider whether they could not remove all their factories and shipyards from the metropolitan area. This would be by far the best solution of the difficulty.

said it was beginning to dawn en the House of Commons that the Resolution which had been accepted in so cheerful a mood by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not the kind of Resolution some Members expected would have been moved, It was beginning to dawn upon the men at Woolwich, Deptford, and elsewhere that a Resolution accepted by the House and the Government would be strangled in a month, and they would say to the Government, which whispered good things in the ear on Wednesday and broke them to the hope on Saturday afternoon—"Thank you for nothing." He was sorry to disturb the harmony of the House, but he disagreed with the view which had been taken of this question by the House of Commons in the last twelve years. Since 1888 many attempts had been made to deal with the conditions of employment, the hours of labour, and the wages paid; but none of them had been satisfactorily settled except that which fixed the eight hours day in all Government departments. When the eight hours day was appointed they were told that it would be unfair to the outside contractors and to the taxpayers. He had always thought differently, and believed that those who worked long hours did not produce the same class of work as those who worked shorter hours. The result of the Government adopting the eight hours, instead of the nine or nine and a half hours, instead of having increased the expense of Woolwich and other arsenals, had lessened it. He applied the same test to wages, and maintained that if they paid 21s. to a workman they would only get 19s. worth of work. The higher the wage paid, the more good work was got. No attempt had been made to approach this subject on scientific lines. The Government of both Parties had sheltered themselves behind the word "fair." An hon. Member had said that no one could define what was "reasonable." What was a fair wage? It might be that Mr. Brown at Deptford would pay what he considered a fair wage, and Mr. Jones would pay what he thought a fair wage at Battersea, but they would not pay the same amount. "Fair" was an unsatisfactory term, and might be interpreted in one way by a generous employer, and in another by a mean employer. The same remark applied to "current rate of wages," and "standard rate of wages." The Resolution, therefore, did not please him. The Secretary of the Treasury had said that the Government wished to be a model employer. He disputed that the Government was a model employer. They were not even in the first flight of good employers, for while wages in private enterprise had increased all over the country from 40 to 60 per cent. the Government had failed to make a similar advance to the workmen in their employ. At one time the wages paid by municipalities to their employees were as bad as those paid to Government workmen; but he was glad to say that through the exertions of some of the members of the London County Council that condition had been altered. The London County Council, the School Board, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board were model employers, and he asked the Government to follow their example. As an illustration, he had interviewed a sweeper, now a watcher, who, thirty-five years ago, only received 19s. 6d. a week for working ten hours a day, Saturdays included. But he now got 30s. a week, with an eight hours day. A great deal had been said about the privileges and the emoluments enjoyed by the Government employees, but these, in his opinion, had been grossly exaggerated, and he believed that the men at Woolwich would commute them for a cash payment of 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week in addition to their present wages, and the men at Deptford for an additional 4s. or 5s. per week. For the payment of 1s. a week the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers got 10s. a week when unemployed, 10s. a week when sick, 10s. per week for superannuation allowance, £12 for funeral expenses, and £5 for insurance, migration, and other advantages. He was prepared to say that if the wages of the workers in the Pimlico establishment were raised from 21s. to 27s. or 28s., the men would be able to obtain all their privileges cheaper than they now enjoyed them. They would never settle this question until the Government followed the example of the municipal authorities. It was ridiculous that the Imperial Parliament should be a sub-Committee on the wages question; and preposterous that its time should be wasted in discussing the policemen's boots, soldiers' coats, or Government workmen's wages when they ought to be discussing greater problems which pressed for settlement. The London County Council at its inception was troubled with such questions, but a resolution was passed that the rate of wages to be paid should be the rate agreed upon between the employers' association and the trade union, and in practice obtaining in the area where the work was executed. The result was, that there was no log-rolling at Spring Gardens; no pressure was brought to bear on members; there was no demand for fancy rates; and municipal government went on uninterruptedly, all because they adopted a sensible rule. He advocated the adoption of the same rule by the Government. It avoided friction, it closured agitation, it saved public bodies from log-rolling and from endless petitions containing grossly exaggerated statements. Until the Government adopted a similar policy, they would never be free from organised pressure, sometimes improperly applied, which their many industrial dependents could bring to bear upon them. He contended that cheap labour meant redundant labour. He knew that if they employed men at 21s. a week, there would be 100 more men than would be necessary if they were paid at a decent rate of wages. He was glad to have the approving nod of one of the best employers in the engineering trade in the country. Cheap labour meant redundant labour, because no one living in London could give the amount of labour he ought to give if he were only paid 21s. a week, and out of that had to pay 8s. 6d. for rent. The result was that the Government service was too often filled up by redundant men—men who did their work in a malingering way, and who did not intend to do a great deal of work. And, considering the example set to them by those who ruled in high places, they could not be altogether complained of. The Resolution would be a failure and a sham unless it were clearly established that the current rate of wages should be the trade union rate of wages. He, therefore, moved to add at the end of the Resolution the words "And such wages shall be those agreed upon by the trade union and employers' association, and in practice obtained where the work is performed." If that Amendment were accepted, Members of the House would be saved from pressure and log-rolling. It might be said that the Government gave preference in their employment to Reserve soldiers and pensioners. If that were so, people who received pensions or other emoluments had no right to lower the standard of wages and comfort of their fellow workmen. It was hard that the civilian worker of this country should be handicapped by competition with the ex-soldier and sailor who, being in receipt of a pension, could work for a lower wage. It was time that this kind of thing was stopped, and the acceptance of the Resolution before the House would stop it. It was also desirable that elections should not be influenced by promises on the part of candidates to get increased pay for dockyard workers. At the last election at Devonport the successful candidate secured his return by such a promise.

I did not.

said he was referring to the junior Member for Devonport, who ought never to have been elected, but who was chosen because he promised an addition to the dockyard workers' pay of 1s., 2s., and even 3s. weekly. He begged to move.

seconded the Amendment. He complained that workers in Government establishments in Ireland were equally in a disadvantageous position. They found that the Government was by no means a model employer. At Ivybridge the labourers got 16s. weekly while private employers like Guinness and the railway companies were paying 21s. This conduct of the Government only encouraged private individuals to cut down wages. Another grievance Irish workers—especially in Dublin—suffered from was the high rents extorted, and the result was that the Government employee, what with getting several shillings below the standard rate of wage and having to pay exorbitant house rent, was in a most unfortunate position.

said that those who were principally concerned in representing the interests of Government employees were quite prepared to be told that those who were employed by the Government had certain advantages. They had the advantage of continuity of employment, and they were in a position to look forward to a pension. But Government employees were divided into two classes—namely, the established and the hired class. The latter class did not receive a pension when they left the service; but only a gratuity represented by a very moderate sum, and therefore did not derive any very great advantage in that respect. Then, again, in many of the grades a very long time elapsed before any rise in pay was given, and in many departments much more was expected of the workman than was the case formerly. He had no desire to take up an attitude of hostility towards the Government, because he thought they had shown a desire, wherever possible, to meet the reasonable demands of Government employees; and it was not to be expected that with a wave of a wand or the stroke of a pen all demands could be met at once. During the last few years a good deal had been done. But the Government employees were at a disadvantage as compared with other workmen employed by municipalities and private firms. The average wage for an ordinary labourer was 24s. a week, but in the Government employment it was 20s., and on the establishment 19s. Joiners on the Thames, Mersey, Clyde, Belfast, and Tyne earned a wage of £2 per week of fifty-two hours, which worked out at about 9¼d. per hour. In the dockyards the pay was for forty-eight hours £1 11s. to £1 12s. 6d., or about 8d. an hour. Then in the Government employment there were many anomalies requiring attention. There were anomalies of classification. There was a scale of pay and pension in the Ordnance Department at Woolwich, introduced in 1902, and never yet extended to Portsmouth or Devonport. Again there was a strange differentiation made in the pay of the employees in the Army and Navy Ordnance Departments. He did not regard the Government as unjust or niggardly, but the method of Government employment was so complicated that it required great care and attention to make it systematic.

said he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Battersea, because it more clearly expressed the object he had in view and would be more easily understood throughout the country.

said he would have had no difficulty in accepting the Resolution, but he had some doubt as to how it would have benefited workmen, and he had been anxious to ascertain from the Government what action they really proposed to take in regard to it, how they would bring it into operation, and what increased demands would be made on the taxpayer, or whether it would meet the same fate as similar Resolutions passed in previous years. He fully concurred with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, but he would suggest to him that it was taking a somewhat unfair advantage of the House to spring on it, an important Amendment at eleven o'clock, without any previous notice of it appearing on the Paper, and when a large number of Members had left the House under the impression that the Resolution would be put from the Chair in the form in which it was originally moved. The hon. Gentleman was usually a close observer of Parliamentary procedure; and he was sure he would admit that the course he had adopted was exceedingly unusual. The Amendment was a very important one; and he regretted it had not been put on the Paper, as if it had been it would have removed any criticism which he might be disposed to offer to the Resolution. He agreed the Amendment was necessary, as without it the Resolution would be a mere pious expression of opinion; but the course adopted in regard to it was very inconvenient and unusual. The Resolution was on the Paper for some days, and there was every opportunity of putting the Amendment down also. He was familiar with Government factories in the London area but none of them were within his constituency; and he was, therefore, free from any personal pressure in the matter. He had, however, always felt that it was not fair for the Government to take advantage of the position of pensioners, and secure their labour at a lower rate than would have to be paid to men who did not enjoy pensions. He did not think it was creditable to the State Departments to expect men to live in decency, let alone comfort, in the metropolitan area at a wage of 21s., 22s., or 23s. a week. Such men were only a few pence above the poverty line; and it was quite impossible for them to live decent and comfortable lives. That ought not to be tolerated by the State, which should readily grant the rate of wages paid by the model employer. He hoped the Resolution would not be grudgingly accepted by the House, but that it would be accepted cheerfully. He did not think it was to the credit of the State that the present condition of affairs should have been permitted to exist for such a long period. He went further, and said that he did not understand the old cry which was brought forward year after year, that if wages were increased in the Government factories the increase would go into the hands of house jobbers, who would charge exorbitant rents. Lord Goschen, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, said that if wages were increased at the Deptford Victualling Yard, rents would immediately be increased. Why should not the Government in the vicinity of those great factories make provision for the housing of its employees just as the model employer did? He was not altogether in favour of too much State interference, but there were cases where a labourer had to be near his work and not have to spend hours in travelling backward and forward. In a place like Woolwich some attempt ought to be made in this direction. In conclusion, as representing one of the largest constituencies of working men in the country, he desired to support the Resolution.

said there was much with which he personally sympathised in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea; but he was surprised that the hon. Member should have moved this Amendment, because it was quite impossible for the departments of the Government concerned to examine it, and it would obviously be most improper for the House, as the representatives of the taxpayers, to come to a decision upon it after three-quarters of an hour's debate. Therefore, although the discussion had proved interesting and might prove useful, he did not suppose that the hon. Member desired that the House should be asked to vote on this matter. The hon. Member himself had told the House, in language of a most impressive character, how difficult and dangerous these questions were, and that for the House to be constantly dealing with questions of wages, on the inspiration of persons who were returned by employees of the Government, was a great misuse of our Parliamentary institutions. He concurred with the hon. Member. One of the dangers to which that House and also the municipalities were exposed was that electoral pressure might be brought to bear upon them to modify the rate of wages, possibly to the advantage of a certain class of employees, but, on the whole, to the disadvantage of the great body of the workmen in the country. With the small opportunity which he had had of examining the Amendment he did not profess to be able to give useful guidance to the House; but it seemed to him that there were very great difficulties in the way of this Amendment, because it was based on the supposition, not merely that skilled labour was organised, but also that unskilled labour was organised. There were organisations of unskilled labour; but to say that the great body of unskilled labour in this country was organised was really to mislead the House; and, unless there were wages agreed upon between employers on the one side and those who represented organised labour on the other, this Resolution as amended really lost all its meaning. There were other difficulties in laying down a hard-and-fast rule of this kind. Did the hon. Member propose that the rate of wages should be fixed according to the rate, prevailing in the locality, or according to the average of the various wages prevailing over the whole country?

said in the locality where the work was executed.

asked how they were to deal with cases in which the Government was practically the only employer of skilled labour of a particular kind, such as at Enfield, Woolwich and the dockyards. In those cases there was no open market which would enable the Government to have a sure guide as to what the local wages were in certain classes of labour. If they took the average of the whole country, they all knew that the trade union rate of wages varied largely, and the Government must be forced in such a case to strike some kind of average which would have something in the nature of a national basis. In regard to unskilled labour, the difficulties were still greater, because the Dockers and General Labourers' Union was not a universal organisation, and the wages were not dealt with between the employers and the employed in the simple manner which would enable the Government to fix a rate without difficulty and doubt. He understood that the Dockers and General Labourers' Union had fixed 6d. an hour as the rate of wages in London. But that was not for continuous employment but merely for a number of hours, a day, or a week. How could casual labour of that kind be compared with regular employment at the dockyards, for instance? What this Government had promised to do, and what preceding Governments had promised to do, was to endeavour, so far as they could, to follow the example of the best employers in the various districts in the trades in which they themselves were concerned. The Government therefore proposed to go on in accordance with the principles involved in the Resolution which they had accepted; but it was unreasonable to ask them now to accept a rider to that Resolution of unknown effect, and the result of which they had had no opportunity of considering.

asked how the right hon. Gentleman would define a standard rate of wages if not in the direction of the Amendment.

said he did not understand the hon. Gentleman's interruption. The endeavour of the Government must be to act as indulgent and benevolent employers, and to pay the current rate of wages arranged between the good employers and the various classes of workmen in the various districts where they had factories and workshops.

said that was the trade union rate of wages.

said that if that was what was meant, why add this rider?

For clearer definition.

said the Government must be allowed to consider whether the general definition of the Resolution was or was not modified by the rider which had been sprung upon the House. Surely they should allow the Government, the magnitude of whose Estimates they denounced when other matters of expenditure were being discussed, to consider whether those Estimates would not be enormously increased, to the detriment of the working classes and every other class of the community, by the rider to the Resolution. He thought there was extreme danger in the growth and increase of direct employment by the State. He did not like the system; and he feared, from the speeches which he had heard that night, despite their moderation—with the substance of which he agreed—that this danger was more imminent even than he had anticipated.

I cannot put that Motion upon this Amendment which was only put from the Chair at twenty minutes past eleven.