To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Unfunded Debt; of what issues does it consist; what were the issues of the Unfunded Debt at the same date last year; and whether he now proposes to fund any portion of the present Unfunded Debt. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain ) The figures for which the hon. Member asks are as follows:—

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

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

† See page 63.

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

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

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

said he did not propose to trouble the Committee with many Amendments to this Bill, although he thought it was open to criticism in many particulars; but he certainly did desire to raise one particular point. He did not attach any significance to the words in the Bill because he did not know what they meant. The boundary of a union might be the same as the boundary of a borough, while, on the other hand, the boundary of a borough might be larger than the bonudary of a union. In the case of Wigan the union was larger than the borough; and any difficulties that might arise in the case of districts beyond London were sure to arise in the case of London. Therefore, as he could not regard the Bill as being satisfactory as it now stood, he begged to move.

suggested that the point should be raised on a later Amendment.

opposed on the ground that the Amendment set up invidious distinctions. Others than members of charitable organisation societies would claim, and he hoped claim successfully, a right to be co-opted, and among them would be I secretaries of trade unions, who might be refused by borough councils on the ground that they had had no experience in the administration of charity. It was not fair thus to limit the choice of borough councils, and he, therefore, would move to omit the words "in the administration of charity."

thought that if the Amendment were accepted it would leave the sentence too vague. They had a precedent for his Amendment in the Education Act of 1902, where it was provided that members "experienced in administration" should be co-opted.

Why not make it "experienced, in the administration of public funds"?

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "experienced in the administration of distress funds"? We want to leave out the idea of charity.

I am afraid "distress fund" would convey no distinct meaning.

Why not say "experienced in the relief of the distress."

preferred the suggestion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He thought the words would convey the meaning more adequately.

Why not say "or other suitable persons"?

said he thought it was desirable to have more distinct phraseology, and he was induced to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University.

next moved an Amendment to the Amendment enabling the borough councils to make nominations.

pointed out that the proposed Amendment would not work effectively in its present form.

moved an Amendment to give power to the Local Government Board to make nominations to the central committee, and he pointed out that this would enable them to bring in well-known men such as Mr. Charles Booth, the Bishop of Stepney, and Mr. Steadman, who otherwise might not find a seat on this body.

said he was prepared to leave this matter to the general sense of the House.

hoped the Government would accept it.

said he thought this was a most dangerous proposal.

said he held that the words were desirable, otherwise the works of the local committee might become permanent whether in a period of prosperity or depression. In his opinion these works should apply only to periods of exceptional distress.

opposed the Amendment. He held that this was a purely local matter, and a local body rather than a central one should be left to take the initiative in a matter which, depended on purely local knowledge.

said he noticed that in the reprinted Bill the portion of the clause which he desired to amend was entirely omitted.

said that that was so, it was deleted in Committee on the last occasion.

said in that case he would move the Amendment in the form of a new clanse. He begged to move.

said the Bill as originally introduced made certain recommendations which the hon. Member now desired to amend, but those recommendations had been since omitted. When the Bill provided for the payment for this employment out of the rates, it was desirable that the conditions under which such employment might be given should be clearly laid down in the Bill, but now that this was to be done out of voluntary contributions there was no necessity to proceed further in the matter, though no doubt in the last section of the Bill certain conditions would be laid down.

said he merely wished to say a word in proof of the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would be not only ineffective but mischievous. On a farm colony a man at present earned 10s. 6d. a week, to which had to be added travelling expenses and a certain allowance which was made to his wife and children. That brought the sum up to an amount higher than that earned by unskilled labour in the same kind of employment. So that if the words of the right hon. Baronet were accepted they would interfere and put a stop to what was being done under existing conditions at the farm colonies.

said he proposed to move as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out the second sub-section. In the Bill as originally introduced there was no power to apply the rates in payment of emigration expenses.

Oh, yes, there was.

said that might be so, but he had not seen it in the original Bill. He submitted that these words, at any rate, should be seriously considered before they were agreed to. He did not for a moment say that it might not be right to set up bureaux for the purpose of sending abroad persons who were well qualified to go abroad and who could not find work at home. What he desired to call attention to was that under the present Bill they would be setting up bureaux for the purposes of emigration, and that the expense would have to be defrayed out of the rates. At the present time there was some qualified power possessed by the boards of guardians to adopt a procedure of the kind. He thought they ought to have some discussion in order to see whether it was really desirable that ratepayers should be obliged to contribute to the expense of sending people out of the country. He would move his Amendmend in order to enable his right hon. friend to give them an explanation.

said the proposal they were now discussing was to leave out Sub-section 2 of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He wished to know whether they were in order in considering this question before they had agreed to leave out the words in the original Bill.

That Question has already been put.

We did not quite understand that you had put the Question leaving out the words relating to providing temporary employment or we should have taken a division upon that point.

I am sorry if there has been any mistake, but I have certainly put the Question.

As you put the Question, the hon. Member opposite rose and we understood that he was speaking to that point or unquestionably we should have challenged a division.

I rose after the Question had been put.

I think it was perfectly well understood that this was the particular point on which the discussion was expected, and I think it is the most important point. The question is whether labour on farm colonies shall be supported out of the rates. On a point of order, I wish to ask, if we are by some accident past the point, is there any way in which this subject may be legitimately raised.

I think the best plan would be for me to take the responsibility upon my shoulders, and, though I have made no mistake, act as if I had. As the whole debate has been conducted in a friendly spirit, I will with general consent withdraw that Question and put it again. The Question is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

said the words proposed to be left out formed the apex of the structure which the Bill proposed to create. It was a Bill to establish organisations with a view to the provision of employment or assistance to an unemployed workman in proper cases. If those words were taken out there was no power contained within the four corners of this Bill to provide work for unemployed workmen, and therefore the title would become misleading, if not out of order. He knew it might be said that work might be provided if the money was found from charitable sources or through voluntary agencies. In his opinion this left too much to chance. In the Bill as originally drafted it was only proposed that the cost of the work should be found out of the rates when done at a farm colony, and the power was restricted to work provided upon a farm colony. It was now proposed to take those words out. How would this empower one of the central bodies to acquire land? The central body would apply for a lease of land, and it would then have no power to spend a single penny in developing it or employing labour upon it unless the money came to them voluntarily. That was a most illogical and ridiculous position in which to place a public body. Was there any precedent for creating a public authority and then leaving it dependent upon the charity of the well-to-do? On the face of it the thing was absurd and ridiculous, and if these words were taken out the whole thing was reduced to an absurdity. It had been said that the genuine unemployed were deserving of being treated in a different category from that of the much quoted loafer, who was in a position of destitution through some fault of his own. This Bill was intended to deal with the better class of the unemployed. He would remind the Committee that these were men and women who valued self-respect. Those who were acquainted with the facts could quote case after case in which, rather than go upon the Poor Law or apply to charitable organisations, they would suffer all manner of privations and hardships, and therefore he put it to hon. Members opposite whether it was not desirable to encourage that spirit of self-respect and independence to which he had referred. What did they say to these men? They said "You may be out of work through no fault of your own; you may want to work for your livelihood; but we shall not allow a single penny of public money to be spent in providing that work for you; and if work is to be found for you at all it must be through the charity of the rich." If hon. Members opposite understood how the word "charity" stank in the nostrils of the working classes, then they would not agree to these words being left out. It was not charity that was wanted, but an honest man's opportunity to work for his bread. What power was there to spend money under the Bill? They had had all sorts of lurid pictures drawn of what would happen if the new authorities were empowered to spend public money in finding work. He would remind the Committee that the Local Government Board would have power to lay down regulations under which the work was to be provided, and that fact ought to be kept in mind. The Local Government Board could decide the terms and conditions upon which employment was to be found, and therefore the danger complained of was safeguarded by that power being vested in a Department under the control of the House. Then, again, the expenditure was limited to a rate of ½d. in the £, and without the consent of the Local Government Board it could not be raised even to 1d. in the £. All they were now asking for was that a rate up to 1d. in the £ should be available to enable the new authorities to deal with this difficulty which they were being created to deal with. None of them contemplated that a rate would be required to pay men for doing useless work. Their experience of farm colonies in England went to show that once they were fairly started they stood a very good prospect of becoming not only self-supporting but even paying concerns. The men were not employed picking oakum or digging holes in order to fill them up again, but they were employed under properly-trained and skilled supervision upon farm work in all its varying phases, such as breeding stock, rearing poultry, and growing vegetables and fruit, and there was every prospect that these colonies would be self-supporting except during periods of exceptional distress. They were asking that when the new authorities had acquired land they should also have power out of the rates to provide the necessary capital for the development of these farm colonies. He submitted that that was quite a logical position to take up. He confessed that he was afraid of leaving this matter to the tender mercies of the rich. There was, after all, a limit to the amount of money that could be obtained annually from charity, and the demands upon the purse of the well-to-do were increasing year by year. They had to subscribe to the hospitals, infirmaries, children's homes, holiday funds, and various other organisations which for the moment were fit and proper subjects for charity. But even now the great hospitals found the greatest difficulties in obtaining the necessary funds to keep those institutions going. If in addition to these institutions they imposed upon charity the task of providing money for distress during unemployment, if the money was forthcoming for the unemployed it was certain that the hospitals and other charitable institutions would suffer accordingly. An examination of this question disclosed the fact that £50,000 was raised in London for the unemployed under the Central Committee instituted by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he noticed that most of the big donors to that fund were not even natives of this country. In Birmingham a 1d. rate would yield £11,622; in the London County Council area the same rate would produce £171,000 a year. If the Bill was applied to the London police area then a 1d. rate would yield £202,000, in Manchester £15,000, Sheffield £6,000, and so on. The point he wished to make was that last year, despite the big subscriptions and the prestige the committee had through having been established by the then President of the Local Government Board, and despite all the personal efforts made to obtain money for this committee, the total sum raised was only £50,000, which was totally inadequate for the purpose. In a time of distress when money was wanted, if, instead of sending the hat round, not only in this country, but also in the Colonies, begging our cousins across the seas to remember their poor brethren at home—if, instead of being reduced to that indignity, the new authorities had power to raise money from the rates for this purpose to the extent of a 1d. rate, then the difficulty would be overcome, and they would be able to provide themselves with the money necessary for carrying out the work which had been entrusted to them. Therefore, he disagreed with the Amendment which had been moved by the President of the Local Government Board, and even at that late hour he would appeal to him and to hon. Mem- bers sitting behind him to say whether it was a wise policy, when creating these new authorities, to deny them the small help they could obtain from the rates. They had heard of British workmen scamping their work, but a piece of workmanship more discouraging than this Bill, when these words were left out, it would be almost impossible to conceive. He trusted the House would not say that the only help these new authorities were to get was to be from the charity of the rich, and he hoped it would not declare that unemployed workers were to have no claim whatever on public funds in order to tide them over a period of distress for which they were not responsible.

said that no one admired more than he did the earnestness with which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had treated this question, and it was impossible not to feel that to declare that these measures of relief from the rates recommended in the terms in which the hon. Member recommended them, were improper and ought to be withheld was to expose one to the imputation of being wanting in proper consideration for those who were badly off, and to an imputation of selfishness and hardness which no Member of the House liked to incur. But he would venture to assure the hon. Member that those Members who were opposed to him in opinion on the subject were opposed entirely on principle and not because they did not feel from the bottom of their hearts the sorrows of those of whom he was the champion. The hon. Member maintained that charity was not wanted, that it stank in the nostrils of the working classes, and. he looked, therefore, to some payment of wages on the part of the community as being, not charity, but fulfilment of a debt. Payment under the Bill as it was originally framed, however, would have been charity, and not payment of a debt. It would have masqueraded as payment of a debt, and it would have been demoralising in a manner which it was very easy to show. He did not know that a charitable payment was in itself degrading. It was not in the least degrading. Any feeling of self-respect which felt degraded by receiving charitable relief when such relief was really needed was a morbid feeling of self-respect and not a wholesome one. But the wound to a healthy self-respect ought to be much greater when there was a pretence about the matter, when the gift was not frankly made as a gift, but appeared in the light of wages, though it was, in fact, no such thing. The hon. Member was, he thought, himself deceived by this pretence. The payment out of the rates for these farm colonies would not be wages; it would not be payment made because work was wanted to be done in that particular place and on that particular occasion; it would be payment made because the House and the country generally felt compassion for the sorrows and hardships of the people employed. They would, in fact, be charitable payments. He did not think it possible to exaggerate the dangers of such a system as that to the character of the first recipients and to the character of that large class of persons who might conceivably become recipients afterwards. Why was there this widespread impression that charitable payments did, as a matter of fact, demoralise the people who received them? It was that such people came to expect charity, and that begging came to be a profession. Everyone knew that the begging-letter writer was a demoralised person. He became demoralised because begging had become his avocation. Instead of earning his own living he begged for it. He was a professional beggar because he had come to think that he had a right to receive the charity of other persons. What would this Bill have done but create a class of unemployed quite as demoralised as the class of professional begging-letter writers, people whose profession and way of life, in the winter months at least, would have come to be the receiving of public charity, and who would have come to look upon it not as charity, but as a right? Their vocation would have been to be unemployed. Unemployment would have been a profession like any other profession; and the public, under the guise of giving these people help, would have done more to sink them permanently in the social scale than if they left them to all the hardships they felt before. If the Poor Law was too hard, and if it could be shown to require modification, by all means let it be modified. Let the assistance they gave be relief, frankly given as such, but let them not pretend that it was wages paid. Let them not delude people whom they were helping into the false and demoralising balief that they were earning their own living, when as a matter of fact they were doing nothing of the kind. They should not let them feel that work on a farm colony, and receiving money from the rates, was not at all a less honourable or a less independent way of life than if they were earning their living by any other form of labour. If they did not keep to that distinction between relief and wages they would do much more harm than good. He had approached the subject from the moral point of view—the influence on character; but the evils could be shown, as was more commonly done, just as easily in approaching it from the economic point of view. It was suggested that the State should create an artificial demand for labour. Observe the inconsistency. Anybody who was, or believed himself, unable to get work elsewhere was to have this resource open to him; it would be something he could fall back upon, so that he could bargain in the labour market with a greater advantage. Therefore they would be interfering with the labour market at one end. Imagine the indignation of hon. Members opposite if it were proposed that paupers in workhouses should make things for sale, and so relieve the rates. Who would be so indignant as hon. Members opposite at such competition with free labour? How inconsistent, then, were they to object to the State using this machinery for the produce of cheap goods in workhouses for the benefit of the community, but not to object in the least to interference with the labour market which would make labour dearer or prevent it becoming cheaper. Was not this the very path which the Australian Colonies had trod with such disastrous results? He was very glad the Government were undertaking to inquire into the whole matter; such action could not but be of great value. He greatly regretted that they did not have the inquiry before they brought in this Bill. The bringing in of the Bill had placed the House and those who were opposed to the principles of the Bill in a very difficult position. If this provision was altogether struck out of the Bill the result undoubtedly would be that it would appear to a very large number of people in this country that this House was hard and indifferent and cared more for its holidays than for the distresses of the poor, and ultimately a class prejudice would be created which would be very mischievous. He did not want, and he was sure no Member of the House wanted, to create the feeling that those who were better off were indifferent to the sorrows of the poor. He wished to avoid any element of division, and, in deference to that consideration, he was quite prepared to assent to the passage of the Bill in its amended form. But he was sorry that the inquiry had not been held and the matter approached with more caution; the House was placed in the dilemma of choosing between two alternatives, both of which appeared to him to be bad ones. The best thing they could do now was to carry the Government Amendment and so save the Bill from being the harbinger of a most dangerous and disastrous course of legislation.

said the whole argument of the noble Lord had reference to the question whether relief should be given in cases of distress by means of public or private charity. The ambition of those who were in favour of the farm colonies was that the men employed on them should give value for the money they received. It was not strange that men who had only an academic knowledge of things and who did not come in contact with those men should say that this was charity. What was proposed here was to help these men to say that they were giving value for the money they received. The class of people proposed to be assisted would not be created by the Bill; they already existed. Reference had been made to the class of professional beggars. There were, no doubt, people who were not subject to any moral discipline who would take advantage of others who were charitable. But what he and his friends were pleading for was the provision of means to make them better men by insisting on their doing a day's work for the money paid to them. It was said by the opponents of this measure that this would create a fictitious demand for labour. It would do nothing of the kind. If men who were willing to work could not find employment it was surely better that they should be provided with useful work in the way proposed than that they should remain idle and depend for support on public or private charity. If it was degrading to receive the aid of charity, it was certainly less degrading to earn a living by giving labour for the money received. The plea of those who supported the proposal for farm colonies was that workers would be saved if they were given something useful to do. He believed the whole thing would be self-supporting. When a proposal of this kind was made the economics of the question always came up, and it was said that they were interfering with persons getting cheap labour. There was some labour which would be dear at any price. What was wanted was that men who at present preyed on the public, and were a nuisance on account of the lives they lived, should be made a valuable asset of the State, capable of doing a day's work. They were told that a surplus number of men would always be wanted in the labour market. No doubt if a master wanted twenty men he would prefer on going to the gate to find 100 from whom he could pick out those who best suited him. Surely that was not good for the welfare of a nation. Did they think that a man was likely to turn to farm work if he could get employment at his own work? The man who had eyes like those of a dead fish and who did not care for anything or anybody would, if put to work on the land for a time, become a useful citizen, but no attempt to deal with that man was made at present. They left him alone. The nation got no benefit from that policy. Instead of getting manly men they were getting degenerates who depended on the charity of others. They wished to get rid of that class, and to get men who would do a useful day's work. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich knew perfectly well from the statistics which were issued year by year that an enormous amount of produce came to this country which could fee produced here if the unemployed in the large towns could be put on the land. They only wanted the capital outlay to begin with. It would be many years before they could persuade the House of Commons that a workman was a human being. [Cries of "No."] He was very glad to have the disclaimer; but did hon. Members opposite talk of these men, and treat them as human beings? Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked him if he was very serious about this matter. He would ask the noble Lord opposite what he would think if he saw three able-bodied men on their knees—that happened to him that morning—with a loaf of bread which they put into a dirty handkerchief, which probably they had received from the board of guardians, in order to take that loaf of bread home. Could hon. Members imagine themselves being in such a condition? If hon. Gentlemen could see this matter from the standpoint he had presented he did not believe that there would be so much said about the economic argument. Those men had to live; how were they living? They were living under conditions which hon. Gentlemen opposite would not allow their dogs to live under! He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were sympathetic; but they pointed out that if these men were given employment in this fashion—employment being limited —the supply of labour would be decreased. What he, and those who agreed with him, thought was that they should increase the production of labour. No one believed that an ordinary working man out of employment would turn with a light heart to a farm colony. It was the last thing that he would think of doing. What they wanted was to keep the manhood of the nation up to a proper standard and not to degrade it. What they wanted was to have the necessary capital to start with for the payment of fair wages; and in a very short time these farm colonies would be self-supporting. In big towns many men were hanging around, useless creatures. What he said was, "Take these men away into the country and make them useful." They might know nothing of agriculture; but under a proper system of discipline they would become better men than they ever were before. What was wanted was to get hold of this flotsam and jetsam of the towns and turn them into useful citizens. Not to do so was a positive loss to the nation. Why should there be men and women going about our streets without the necessities of life? In these farm colonies there was an opportunity for men and women who had broken down owing to the introduction of new machinery, and fluctuations of trade, to turn their mind into some useful occupation. He rather agreed that this Bill would not be so good in its result as the economic Gentlemen opposite said it would be without this clause. But he only wished that hon. Gentlemen opposite had had some of his experience. He did not believe that there was a hard-hearted man in that House; they only erred in this regard because they were ignorant of the facts of the case. When a banker pleaded some financial question, hon. Members said that he spoke on a subject of which he knew something, and, therefore, they trusted him, and voted accordingly. What he wanted was that the Labour Members should be treated in the same fashion. What he and his Labour friends were pleading for was that they ought to have their wishes — founded on experience—considered in regard to this matter.

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

said he desired to move to omit Sub-section 2 of the Amendment just agreed to. He had a strong dislike to anything which increased the burden of local taxation. It was already enormously heavy on the industries of this country, and it ought not, therefore, to be added to. Only on the preceding day he had occasion to look into the question of the rating of our railways, and he found that in the case of one company alone no less a sum than £307,000 was charged in respect of rates and taxes. And that was merely a sample of what was going on in connection with all our great undertakings.

said the Committee had already decided that rates might be raised for the purposes of the Act, and the hon. Member was therefore simply arguing against a decision already arrived at.

said that, inasmuch as he was precluded from moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, he would not press his opposition.

moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to provide that the Local Government Board might, if they thought it expedient, extend the provisions of the section to any borough or district adjoining or near to London without any such application. He pointed out that the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board might lead to unfair results, inasmuch as a poor outside district like West Ham might apply to be brought in, and thus help to swell the burden of the rates upon the London ratepayer, while the richer residential districts would remain out, and provide no compensation. After all, for all practical purposes places like West Ham were inside the London area and should participate in the benefits of the fund. In his opinion, there should be power to compel the residential districts to come in and pay their fair share of the rates. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.

hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would give this Amendment favourable consideration. As the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment stood it would not work quite fairly, as many of the poorer districts outside London would not be able to work the Act except in co-operation with other districts. This proposal simply gave option to the Local Government Board to bring in other parts, and although he would have preferred to have seen the whole police area of London brought within the scope of the Bill, he thought the proposal of the Member for Merthyr Tydvil should be accepted.

also felt strongly that the rule should be "all or none." The halfpenny rate had been agreed to, and would be levied and expended for the purposes already sanctioned by the House. It was therefore no use labouring under any delusion. The poor ratepayer would feel the burden to a much greater extent than anybody else, and under the original Amendment he might be saddled with the upkeep of many poor districts and gain nothing in return. He did not think that would be equitable.

also approved the Amendment, as it proceeded on the lines of the Equalisation of Rates Act which he had actively supported and which had operated most beneficially for the poorer boroughs of the Metropolis.

saw many objections to the proposal. It was frankly confessed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that it was intended that the Amendment should have the effect of drawing in the richer districts for the benefit of the poorer ones outside the Metropolis, and he thought it would be rather a strong order to put a power in the hands of the Local Government Board to be exercised against the will of the localities concerned. The effect would simply be to milk them for the benefit of others.

said the residential suburbs of London were occupied by people who there spent the money earned for them by the workpeople in the East End of London and in poorer districts generally. It was not fair that they should be able to make money in one part of London and then clear out and spend it in another part, thus escaping scot free from obligations which should properly be borne by them.

suggested the Government should reconsider their decision. Might they not consider whether they could not include a sufficient proportion of the outlying counties round London, and put the county councils of those counties under the necessity of making a rate. A little consideration would enable them to mark out a suitable boundary. Surely between now and the Report stage it might be possible to devise some practical machinery which would meet the wishes of the hon. Member.

was inclined to think that both sides of the House would welcome a proposal to bring the larger areas outside London into coordination and co-operation with the smaller circle of the Metropolis itself. It would be grossly unfair to the Metropolis to have a district like West Ham brought in and for wealthier districts to be permitted to stand out. His suggestion was that the Local Government board should be enabled to draw up a scheme which would cover the various areas outside London. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it would not be fair to the richer districts to compel them to come in, but surely it would not be fair that London as a whole should be mulcted for the benefit of the poorer districts without getting the relief to which they were entitled from other districts better off.

Can the President of the Local Government Board hold out any hope that this matter will be reconsidered? If so, I will not pres my Amendment.

said he would try and collect the opinion on the subject before the Report stage, and consider the matter; but he must not be taken as giving any pledge. The House was a comparatively small one, and he was not prepared to accept without inquiry the statements which had been made.

was understood to express a doubt as to the desirability of the unemployed committees being empowered to spend public funds for purposes of migration, and to say that the House ought also to have an opportunity of considering more carefully whether these committees should have power to emigrate people.

said the hon. Member was mistaken if he supposed that the original Bill did not give power to emigrate or migrate persons. He did not think any danger whatever was involved in the proposal. Both boards of guardians and county councils already possessed power to emigrate people, but he admitted that the power to migrate was new. He did not think, however, that any serious danger was likely to arise. If the central body in London were simply to pay the travelling expenses of a large number of unemployed and dump them down in some other area, that certainly would be a most undesirable proceeding, but it was impossible to suppose that such would be the result of this proposal.

wished to protest against the idea that certain provisions in this Bill were bound up with an extreme form of Socialism. He did not wish to be considered a better Tory than Mr. Pitt, and hon. Members should remember that in 1796 Mr. Pitt introduced a Bill dealing with the subject under discussion, which passed through Committee, but was eventually lost largely through the Radical philosopher Benham. Clause 2 of that Bill embodied the principle of the living wage, providing that if a man was working for a wage insufficient to keep his family respectably it might be supplemented from the rates. Clause 3 provided that agricultural labourers might be provided with cows and other animals out of the rates Clause 5 provided that the possession of visible property not exceeding £30 in value should not disqualify for poor relief. Among other provisions, there wag one bearing on the farm colony question, under which managers of the poor were empowered to enclose commons. These provisions, whether they were good or bad, showed that Conservative tradition was not identified with an extreme form of individualism. He regretted that the Bill was not kept in its original form; he had voted for the omission of crucial words only because he was afraid the Bill would otherwise be lost. He hoped the Bill would be given a fair chance, and, if necessary, wider experiments made, but they should be judged by their actual fruits and not merely upon theories.

asked why it was proposed that this compulsion should be applied to county local authorities. The provision might have a most serious effect in compelling a county to go in for the proposed system whether they wished to or not. The local authorities were perfectly competent to consider this question, and knew the needs of the district infinitely better than the President or any official of the Local Government Board could do. It was extremely undesirable that this power of compulsion should be placed in the hands of the Department, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would Withdraw the Amendment.

thought it would be unadvisable to set up an organisation of this kind against the wish of the local authority. The Bill depended largely on local effort and voluntary subscriptions, and large subscriptions were not likely to be forthcoming for the establishment of farm colonies if the local authorities were so much against the setting up of the machinery that they had not made an application, or if the machinery was set up against the will of the local authority. The provision would probably defeat its own end.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Amendment, the scope of which, he thought, had been misapprehended by hon. Members opposite. The Local Government Board were not likely to use the power unfairly or unreasonably. In a county there might be several considerable industrial centres which would have their own central bodies under this Bill, but there might be a considerable margin of unemployed in the districts outside those areas for whom the county council would be able practically to wash its hands of all responsibility, and who would naturally drift into the towns where central bodies had been created. He imagined that the object of the Amendment was to enable the Local Government Board in such cases to extend the operation of the Act to practically the whole county.

said the hon. Member for Poplar had correctly explained the motive with which the Amendment had been put on the Paper. It had been represented to him that the unemployed in the county districts where the organisation was not in operation might flock into the industrial districts where it was in operation. He did not think it was a very serious risk, but he was sure the Local Government Board would not use this power unless there were very real reasons for so doing. It would be very difficult for the Board to force local authorities in opposition to their views.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way in this matter. The county councils and district councils were strongly opposed to being over-ridden by the Local Government Board. They knew their own business and the conditions of their areas perfectly well, and there would be ample force behind them to compel them to put the Act into operation if it were necessary or desirable. He could see no reason whatever for the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

did not think the Amendment was intended to apply to purely rural counties. The case suggested was that of a county in which there were small industrial towns, such as Leicestershire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the danger foreseen was that in a time of depression, if there was unemployment in many of the small industrial towns, the unemployed would be thrown as a burden upon the central county boroughs or other large towns which had established machinery for the relief of the unemployed. In the Second Reading debate, no proposal was more criticised than that this machinery should be put into operation in London while in the provinces the question was left open, the fear being that the unemployed would be attracted to London. That point had been met, but precisely the same argument applied to the county towns in an industrial county as to London in regard to the country as a whole. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Amendment.

said that from the first he had felt there was a serious danger that this Bill might lead to a considerable exodus of rural populations from the country districts into the towns. In many places there was an entirely false notion as to the wealth that could be obtained in the towns, and it would be a very great evil if that delusion were in any way strengthened. He regretted the Bill because of the effect it might have in that direction. He wished not only the return of the people to the land, but also the continuance of the rural population already there, and he deprecated anything that might operate in a different direction. For this reason he entirely concurred in the criticisms which had been made of this proposal.

pointed out that many villages had industrial populations not working on the land, who felt the lack of employment as acutely as the workpeople in the boroughs, and unless there was some means by which the inhabitants of these villages could participate in the benefits of this Bill, they would naturally migrate by degrees to the boroughs. Thus the village populations would be diminished, the town populations increased, and the burden on the boroughs intensified. The Amendment was absolutely necessary. A large number of boroughs, but hardly any county councils, had petitioned the Government to go on with this Bill, the reason being that the county councils did not come into such close touch as the boroughs with the working people and therefore did not fully realise the importance and necessity of the Bill.

said he did not claim to speak for any other county than London, but London would be the chief victim or beneficiary under this Bill, whichever way it was regarded. The hon. Member for Wigan had admitted that the people drifted from the country districts into the large towns, and London had either to maintain these people in the poorhouses or provide the machinery proposed in this Bill. That was what London had to suffer now, and he strongly hoped the districts in the neighbourhood of London would not be allowed to escape by refusing to act fairly in this matter. The Local Government Board would not arbitrarily, and without necessity or just cause, impose this machinery on a district; it would speedily be brought to account ii any such attempt were made. He strongly protested against London, which was to be made the subject of a great experiment, being put at a disadvantage by the extension of undue favour to certain districts.

pointed out that to benefit under the Bill it was necessary that a person should have resided in the district for a period of not less that twelve months immediately before the application. He could not think that anybody would go from the country and live in a town for twelve months simply to get the possible advantage of the Bill. If the measure

was surprised that so many representatives of county divisions should urge the withdrawal of this Amendment. In such districts they were at times faced with the problem of unemployment. Sometimes through the closing of a colliery 200 or 300 men were temporarily thrown out of work. It was not desired that those men should be attracted into the big boroughs near by; they wanted to prevent the depopulation of the villages, which had been going on, because when these periods of unemployment arrived there was no provision for giving temporary relief. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the appeals from the other side of the House.

said it was important to understand the meaning of the clause. Was it possible for the Local Government Board, under the clause as it stood, upon the application of, say, one district council or one board of guardians to establish a central body for the entire county? As the clause stood he thought they could, and, if so, this Amendment was a comparatively small extension. That being so, if his interpretation was correct, he should support the Amendment.

said his hon. friend was quite correct as to the meaning of the clause. In view of the great variety of opinion which had been expressed he thought the Government ought not to press the Amendment officially. He would suggest, therefore, that hon. Members should vote according to their convictions. Personally, he should vote for the Amendment.

moved to substitute "may if they think fit" for "shall" in line 38, so as to make the sub-section optional. However necessary the Hill might be in London or other populous districts, he thought that in those areas where there had been no evidence of need the less familiar the population were made with the proposed machinery the better. He could not understand why there should be set up the special committee compulsorily enjoined by this clause when there was no body to deal with the unemployed and no necessity for any such body. He believed the result of the establishment of such a committee would in many cases result in its resolving itself into a fishing committee to find out unemployed and to bring to their notice the opportunity there was for getting assistance from public funds.

said he would be unwilling to see this change made in the Bill. The provision had been in the Bill from the beginning, and no proposal had hitherto been made that the clause should be optional. The duties the committee were to carry out rendered it necessary that the system should be generally established, and the acceptance of the Amendment would prevent that being ensured.

said his hon. friend had spoken only of county districts, but the clause applied also to county boroughs, and they certainly would not like to be included in the Amendment.

said the Amendment he desired to move was intended to extend the operation of the Act to other works authorised by the Local Government Board" in addition to farm colonies. The case he had in mind was in such counties as Essex where they might desire to employ men upon land reclamation. This was work which might with advantage be carried out upon the foreshores of the Thames and other places. Under the Bill as it stood, it would be impossible to employ men on this kind of work because they could only be employed upon farm colonies. The Amendment he was submitting would give them the option of utilising other works for the unemployed which the Local Government Board might consider suitable. Any argument which could be used in favour of farm colonies could also be used with equal force in favour of the words which he desired to insert. In some respects the work of land reclamation might be even more suitable than work in farm colonies, because it would find immediate work for the unemployed at the least possible expense, without necessitating the erection of so many buildings and the provision of farm stock, etc. He begged to move.

thought if the Local Government Board had power to sanction other works it would be an advantage. He did not know whether the House remembered the result of the inquiries made by the Committee upon Distress through Want of Employment which reported in the year 1896, but it was pointed out in the Report of that Committee that under the existing law, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, the local authorities had power to do a great many things, and to initiate a good many works which might serve the purpose of relieving distress from want of employment. One recommendation of this Committee was that the Local Government Board should encourage local authorities to try experiments of this kind. This was considered as a sort of experimental science because it was felt that those sitting in arm-chairs were not competent to decide what was the best method of dealing with the unemployed. The policy distinctly laid down by that Committee was that, as far as possible, the Local Government Board should criticise the various proposals made by local authorities, and view them favourably when they thought there was any possibility of success. Those powers still existed outside the powers conferred upon local authorities under this Bill. This Amendment had the effect of giving the Local Government Board power to make regulations in regard to the experiments to be made under this Bill.

said this Amendment did not seem to him in any way to interfere with the operation of the Act, and it would at all events give greater elasticity with regard to the different ways in which the central committee might provide employment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment, because it would enable local authorities to deal with foreshore reclamation and work of that sort, which would be just as advantageous as work upon farm colonies.

said the words of the Amendment seemed to him very wide, and might suggest that the unemployed should be set to work in municipal workshops. While he agreed that the sanction of the Local Government Board afforded a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of this power, he could not accept the words suggested without further consideration.

said he should be glad to see the sphere of employment under the Bill extended.

said that unless some such words as those contained in the Amendment were inserted, the local authorities upon this question would find themselves in a worse position than they were now. He remembered one occasion when a North-country public body set to work quite a large number of unemployed to plant a very large moor in the borough with a belt of trees Under the Bill as it stood such work could not be undertaken because they would be limited to farm colonies. If any town preferred to employ a few hundred of their own workpeople in their own district upon useful work instead of sending them miles away in the country he thought they ought to be able to do so. Unless they inserted some such words as were included in the Amendment a great public authority like that in the town of Newcastle would be precluded from taking up such work as they did some ten or twelve years ago.

said he would consider the question on the Report stage, and perhaps the hon. Member would withdraw and bring up the point again.

agreed to this course and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved an Amendment to leave out of Subsection 2 of Clause 5, the words "Scotland or."

seconded the Amendment, and said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.

said it was felt in Scotland that this Bill was more urgently required than in England. In Scotland there was a strong objection to the acceptance of parochial relief. There was a strong spirit of independence which prevented the labouring class, even more than in England, from applying for relief to the parish authorities when for any reason they were unable to get employment. This Bill did provide for temporary employment, and the Scottish representatives felt that a measure which was admittedly required for England should also apply to Scotland, especially as it would be the only Bill dealing with this subject for three years at least because there was to be a Commission appointed, and if they attempted to extend this machinery to Scotland they would be met with the argument that, a Commission was sitting and that no legislation was possible until the Commission had reported. Therefore, he would appeal to the Government to extend this measure to Scotland now. Inadequate as it was, it would do something for the unemployed in Glasgow and other industrial centres in Scotland where machinery was required as urgently as South of the Tweed.

said he had always thought that caution was characteristic of the Scottish people. In a House composed mainly of Englishmen a proposal far-reaching in its character and in its possible consequences had been accepted, and now it was proposed to extend the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. The Bill as it stood at present was applicable to England alone, and it was on that footing that it had been dealt with in its progress through Committee. Whatever might be the views of the Lord-Advocate as to the desirability or undesirability of making the Bill applicable to Scotland, he would admit that in order to adapt it to Scotland very considerable additions would have to be inserted in the Bill itself. The language of the Bill was quite inappropriate to Scotland. His objection to the proposal was that it had been suddenly sprung upon them. The question had never been considered in any way by those responsible for the administration of local affairs in Scotland. He had not had one representation made to him by a local authority in his own county or any part of Scotland. Scottish opinion had not been elicited upon it. He would remind the House that the Scottish Poor Law had always been essentially different from that of England, and that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had promised, he thought wisely, a Commission to inquire into the whole question of the administration of the Poor Law in England and Wales. It was most desirable that Scotland should also be included in the scope of the work of the Commission. He hoped that the inquiries would be carried on simultaneously by three separate Commissions. There were differences between the systems of Poor Law administration in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he believed that in past legislation these differences had always been maintained. It was very undesirable that the matter should be inquired into by one Commission. He objected to a proposal of this kind being sprung upon them at the last moment without an opportunity being given to the local authorities in Scotland to express their views as to whether the Bill should be extended to Scotland. He thought it was an exceedingly dangerous proposal. He could not say what view the public authorities would have on the matter. No change ought to be made in the Poor Law administration of England or Scotland until they had had full and ample opportunity of considering the whole question in all its ramifications. For that reason he would resist the proposal to extend the Bill to Scotland.

said he happened to be connected with an association of trade unions which represented the workmen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and in that respect he thought he could claim to represent the views of Scottish workmen. Whatever Scottish municipal opinion might be on the matter—and no doubt the hon. Baronet had more right to speak on that than himself—so far as he had been able to gather their opinion at congress, the workmen desired the extension of this Bill to Scotland. As to the question of necessity, surely the present law was more inadequate in Scotland than in England. In England they had power to grant relief to an able-bodied workman, but there was no such power in Scotland. If that was so, there was greater need for this particular Bill in Scotland than in England. If they were to judge of the necessity for the Bill from the state of unemployment in Glasgow the case was unanswerable. Glasgow spent during last winter £12,000 in dealing with the unemployed. That proved the necessity for something being done in order to relieve the unemployed there. Whatever might be the language used in the Bill, hunger meant hunger all the same. He did not think they ought to stick at the objection raised unless it was something unsurmountable. It was merely a question of drafting which could be arranged afterwards. If the Bill was not to be applied to Scotland they should have stronger arguments than they had yet heard. The great towns in the North of England would come under this Bill, and they would be liable to have the unemployed of Glasgow and other large towns across the Tweed coming to them if this measure was not extended to Scotland. In the North of England they did not desire that the Scottish unemployed should be able to do that. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not refuse to consider this matter.

said that, while he had not up to the present time had any intimation from Scottish sources that such a Bill was desired in Scotland, at the same time he could not but note that only one Member had opposed the extension of the Bill to Scotland. He did not know whether his Scottish friends had reflected as to whether all the provisions of the Bill were really applicable, say, to the Highland counties. To compulsorily establish labour bureaux and employment exchanges in the Highland counties did not seem at the first blush to be a very desirable provision. At the same time he did not see why the Bill could not be applied to other parts of Scotland and prove as useful there as in England. He really felt some difficulty in the matter, and he confessed he should have liked, had it been possible, to have had more time for the consideration of the proposal. Unfortunately the Committee must decide there and now whether Scotland should be included or not because on the Report stage Scotland could not be included. He did not feel that, on behalf of the Government, he could accept the Amendment, and he was afraid that he must again resort to the old expedient and leave the question to the judgment of the House.

asked if it would not be possible to extend the Bill to Scotland now and reconsider it on the Report stage.

suggested that, as there was also an Amendment to extend the Bill to Ireland, the more convenient course would probably be to delete altogether Sub-section 2 of Clause 5.

said the Government would accept both Amendments—the one extending the Bill to Scotland and the other extending it to Ireland—on the same terms, namely, that they should be open to reconsideration at a later stage.

suggested that the Lord - Advocate might draft the phraseology necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland and consult some, of the Scottish Members in doing so.

said there would be no difficulty in the matter. It would merely be a question of drafting an interpretation clause translating the English terms into the appropriate 'Scottish terms.

said it would be recognised that there was a genuine desire to assist the Government in getting the Bill through the House. On the Opposition side there would be no desire for prolonged discussion on the Report and Third Reading stages, and he hoped the Bill would be put down as the first order on Monday.

said he would consider that suggestion in relation to the general business of the House.

moved a new clause defining "workmen" as including workwomen for the purposes of this Act. He was aware that the President of the Local Government Board had informed the House that the language of the Bill at present included women as well as men. In view of possibilities he wished to make assurance doubly sure, and, therefore, he hoped the clause would be accepted. He begged to move.

said the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary and might be injurious, not in regard to this Kill, but in regard to others. It would be bad drafting. There was not the slightest doubt that the Bill did apply to female workers.

asked whether the Amendment was only objected to because it was unnecessary.

said it was quite unnecessary.

asked whether he was to understand that the word "workmen" included workwomen.

said that was so.

said that on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

appealed to the Prime Minister to put down the Bill as the first order on Monday, as it was possible that there might be contention about it in the House of Lords. Although he did not accept the Bill in its present form as satisfactory he was prepared to co-operate with hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and to limit discussion as much as possible on Monday in order to get the Bill through.

said he only wished to re-echo that statement.

said that in view of what had to be done before the Bill could pass into law, he considered it would be desirable to take it first on Monday. It was understood, he supposed, that the House would give the Government the same assistance on the Report stage and on the Third Reading as they had so generously accorded to-day.